Online retail spending reached $41.9 billion for the quarter, and the fourth quarter is where we should see the real spending. It’s the twelfth consecutive quarter, by the way, that comScore has shown positive year-over-year growth. It’s the eighth consecutive quarter of double digit growth.

“The Q3 growth rate of 15 percent growth remained in line with the prior quarter and provided confirmation of the strength in the e-commerce sector, despite a few negative headwinds in the macroeconomic environment during the quarter,” said comScore chairman Gian Fulgoni. “Such performance offers some optimism as we approach the holiday season, especially given recent improvements in consumer sentiment.”

“With the housing market beginning to show signs of recovery in addition to increasing – if still underwhelming – job growth, there appears to be strong enough footing to support a very healthy online holiday shopping season,” Fulgoni notes.

comScore found the top-performing product categories to be Digital Content & Subscriptions, Consumer Electronics, Event Tickets, Apparel & Accessories, and Computer Software. Each of these grew by at least 16% compared to the year ago quarter.

The firm also found that 37% of U.S. consumers say they have engaged in “showrooming” behavior, where they use a smartphone while in a retail store. Google recently shared some interesting stats about this trend as well.

“The survey also shows that despite a slow-moving economic recovery there has been marked improvement in consumer sentiment in the past quarter, although many consumers still remain challenged by economic conditions,” says comScore. “48 percent of U.S. consumers now rate the economy as ‘poor’ an 8-percentage point improvement vs. the prior quarter and the most pronounced improvement since early 2009 (following the worst of the financial crisis).”

While this is good news for the housing market and the economy as a whole, those selling their home were not helped by a similar rise in home prices. The currently low mortgage rates, along with inexpensive home prices have allowed many new homeowners to enter the market at a low cost.

The Commerce Department estimates that the average sale price of a new residential house was $263,200 in July, which is a slight drop from June’s estimate of $266,900. They estimate that 142,000 new houses were up for sale at the end of July, which is enough to last 4.6 months at the current sales rate.

The Associated Press is reporting that housing stocks rose yesterday following the Commerce Department’s announcement, though they still managed to end the day slightly down, along with the rest of the market.

New Commerce Department home sales estimates for the month of August can be expected on Wednesday, September 26.

Roubini, who teaches at New York University’s Stern School of Business, explained the economic disaster looming on the horizon could cause the global financial system to “grind to a halt”, which isn’t the sort of thing you want to hear when you’re attempting to keep your family’s heads above water. Most folks are still trying desperately to regain the foothold they lost during 2008′s disaster, never mind preparing for a much larger problem down the road.

Dr. Doom’s theory: Tax increases and spending cuts will push the United States into yet another recession. This, combined with Europe’s debt crisis, China’s wonky economy, and a potential military presence in Iran, could shove most of the civilized world towards a complete collapse. The problem, of course, is that we’re quickly heading towards the point of no return. Unless something is done immediately to turn the tide, turmoil seems inevitable.

“There might be a weak rally because people are being cheered by more quantitative easing by (Chairman Ben) Bernanke and the Fed, but if the economy is weakening, that is going to put downward pressure on earnings growth,” Roubini explained.

Curious to hear more thoughts on the subject? The video you see embedded below contains a lengthy interview with Roubini, so feel free to dive in if you need more information.

In a letter to Congress, Public Knowledge, Free Press, Consumers Union, and New America Foundation wrote:

Data caps do have a very real impact on consumer behavior. Data caps dampen the use of broadband generally and discourage high-bandwidth applications, like online video, specifically. This dynamic has been illustrated in letters submitted to the Federal Communications Commission last year by public interest groups [including signatories to his letter].1

If data caps had a legitimate economic justification, they might be just a necessary annoyance. But they do not have such a justification. Arbitrary caps and limits are imposed by multichannel video providers that also provide broadband Internet access, because the providers have a strong incentive and ability to protect their legacy, linear video distribution models from emerging online video competition.

Do data caps cause harm to you? Why or why not? We’d love to hear your perspective.

These issues have gained a lot of attention lately after several companies have raised concerns regarding the negative impact that data caps have on them. Netflix recently lashed out at Comcast over the cable giant’s announcement to not count the television programming users access through its Xfinity video streaming service against their 250-gigabyte monthly data cap. Reed Hastings, Netflix’s CEO, believes that Comcast isn’t following the FCC’s Open Internet Order and took to Facebook to voice his distaste for the company’s latest move:

Comcast no longer following net neutrality principles.

Comcast should apply caps equally, or not at all.

I spent the weekend enjoying four good internet video apps on my Xbox: Netflix, HBO GO, Xfinity, and Hulu.

When I watch video on my Xbox from three of these four apps, it counts against my Comcast internet cap. When I watch through Comcast’s Xfinity app, however, it does not count against my Comcast internet cap.

For example, if I watch last night’s SNL episode on my Xbox through the Hulu app, it eats up about one gigabyte of my cap, but if I watch that same episode through the Xfinity Xbox app, it doesn’t use up my cap at all.

The same device, the same IP address, the same wifi, the same internet connection, but totally different cap treatment.

In what way is this neutral?

Although Larry Downes, a senior adjunct fellow at Tech Freedom, would prefer not to have data caps, he told us that they do not fall under net neutrality concerns. As he explained, net neutrality is being misrepresented in this case and, therefore, takes the focus off of the real issues.

“The advocates believe any new service that is not really clear from a competitor’s standpoint… they kind of like to just paste it with the phrase net neutrality,” said Downes.

“It’s extremely misleading and very unhelpful to try to figure out what is best for customers if we just kind of paste everything with net neutrality,” he added.

Amazon is another company that is sounding alarm over data caps, and it expressed its concerns in a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on online video. Based on numerous reports, Sony is also halting plans to move forward with its own video streaming service until the FCC weighs in on Comcast’s Xfinity decision.

Just yesterday, Senator Al Franken sent a letter to the FCC vocalizing his concern over Comcast’s behavior as well. He is urging the commission to take action against cable company.

There is, however, the other side of this debate that believes data caps are necessary and even justifiable. Eli Dourado, a research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, is among this group. He spoke with us and explained that, even though he is a paid subscriber to three different online video services, he still thinks that data caps serve a significant purpose.

According to him, the first reason Internet service providers have data caps is for pricing incentives. In other words, if ISPs had one flat rate and no data cap, they would have to charge a lot more for their services. With caps, Dourado explains that ISPs can offer options to consumers, thus better meeting needs.

For example, ordinary consumers pay a lower cost for their services but have a data cap. Businesses, on the other hand, pay more but have no cap. Consumers are also able to pay more to not have a cap, if they wish.

The second reason Dourado thinks data caps are necessary is to help alleviate congestion. Everyone knows that when too many people are using the same bandwidth, the service slows way down. If data caps didn’t exist, more than likely, ISPs would have a metering plan in which users would pay bit-by-bit. Most consumers, however, would prefer to pay a flat rate, even if it’s more, in order to make their accounting easier.

“They’re [consumers are] willing to pay more and to have a flat rate than to pay less and have a metered rate,” said Dourado.

Thirdly, he believes data caps are justifiable to ISPs for copyright reasons. As SOPA and PIPA demonstrated, the entertainment industry is very concerned with copyright violations. Without data caps, Dourado told us that there would be “a lot more filtering and a lot more government control over content on the Internet.” This, in turn, could lead to ISPs being forced into a “copyright police” position. Dourado also mentioned that the chances of a SOPA passing could be more realistic without caps.

“If not something exactly like SOPA, something equally bad or worse could happen if there were no data caps,” he said.

Dourado went on to say that he too doesn’t think data caps are an issue of net neutrality. According to him, caps are important given the current economy and cable infrastructure.

“Everybody wants a neutral Internet… but, it’s totally different when you get into the actual economics of network industries of building out this infrastructure… it’s not always easy to provide neutrality,” said Dourado.

“Somebody has to pay for the pipes,” he continued, “and the most efficient way to have people pay for them is to pay a share of the fixed costs, and then a share of the marginal costs.”

Furthermore, Dourado told us that he has never gone past his cap even with his three online services. As a result, he doesn’t think that excess usage is very common.

“If you’re a normal Internet user and you browse the Web and use email and watch some YouTube videos here and there, you’re not gonna get anywhere near the cap,” he said.

He went on to say that, for those users who are afraid they will go over their limit, the consequence is essentially an “idle threat.” He said most ISPs simply send a letter of notification, and beyond that, nothing really happens.

“If enough consumers just say…. ‘We’re gonna use this and we’re gonna go to our cap or even succeed it,’ I think that the Internet service providers will have to accommodate them,” said Dourado.

As for mobile data caps, Dourado told us that they are even more important than those imposed by ISPs since mobile networks contain a much higher volume of congestion. In other words, the days of unlimited data plans are a long way from coming back.

Although there isn’t an investigation open to examine data caps at this time, Dourado said the groups that oppose them are very effective at getting their message out. In the long run, however, he is optimistic that the government will not intervene.

Do you think the government should step in regarding data caps? Please share your thoughts.

In a press release the White House released, the President said:

“America’s high-growth entrepreneurs and small businesses play a vital role in creating jobs and growing the economy. I’m pleased Congress took bipartisan action to pass this bill.  These proposals will help entrepreneurs raise the capital they need to put Americans back to work and create an economy that’s built to last.”

What do you think the JOBS Act will do for small businesses and startups? Please share.

The bill covers several provisions, but the most prominent one is “crowdfunding.” Under this element, startups and small businesses can solicit the general public for investment, which democratizes funding efforts.

Michael McGeary, who is a strategist with venture capital firm Hattery Labs, worked with lawmakers on this bill and told us that crowdfunding was the “#1 way for direct benefits as the bill rolls out.”

“It’s gonna make it available for people all over the country to give what they can to a startup they believe in and get equity in return, which will help on both sides,” he said.

Crowdfunding will specifically help those startups that don’t need millions of dollars but that still need some to get their feet of the ground. McGeary said it would help startups become companies more quickly and also give them more growth potential. He also told us that he expects to see more companies such as Kickstarter and IndieGoGo as the JOBS Act is rolled out.

While some people have questioned the impact of crowdfunding on traditional funding methods, McGeary doesn’t believe they will be harmed in any way. In fact, he believes they will be enhanced by crowdfunding.

“Crowdfunding is not going to utterly change that system,” he said. “All it’s gonna do is make it better for more people to get more ideas to the marketplace faster.”

He went on to say that it would draw in a wider community to what’s happening in the Silicon Valley because more people will be involved. This will furthermore help to create a more transparent startup economy since the community will be bigger and more diverse.

The JOBS Act will also lighten the regulatory hurdles that small businesses must go through in the expansion of “mini public offerings” and the creation of an “IPO On-Ramp.” These provisions will not only eliminate forced IPOs, but it will also speed up the process for businesses to grow at a faster rate.

Despite the strong bipartisan support, there has been some opposition to the bill. In a post in Rolling Stone entitled “Why Obama’s JOBS Act Couldn’t Suck Worse,” Matt Taibbi discusses the fraud and scams that could take place in the stock market as a result of the law:

“In fact, one could say this law is not just a sweeping piece of deregulation that will have an increase in securities fraud as an accidental, ancillary consequence. No, this law actually appears to have been specifically written to encourage fraud in the stock markets.”

The Huffington Post also pointed to the dissatisfaction of the labor parties suggesting that the White House chose the tech community to alleviate concerns raised over the SOPA outbreak in January. Others have indicated that the law could open the door for weak IPOs.

McGeary, however, told us that he does not believe the negatives outweigh the positives. According to him, the people who are advocating the law are adamant on its success and, therefore, are determined to keep fraud away.

“There’s no investment without risk,” McGeary said.

“If bad actors do enter the system and fraud does start to proliferate through the crowdfunding system, there’s gonna be a movement afoot in Washington very quickly to make sure that any regulations that have to be changed or augmented in that way, will happen swiftly,” he added.

While McGeary believes the JOBS Act is a “great first step,” he believes that more needs to be done in terms of the startup community, especially in the areas of long term STEM education and spectrum and broadband patents.

The SEC is currently requesting feedback on the law, as it contemplates potential regulatory measures.

Do you see more concerns or benefits with the JOBS Act? Let us know in the comments.

Here are some not so fun facts from the U.S. News Student Loans Ranger blog about student loans and the necessity of going into debt to function as an American citizen:

Total outstanding student loan debt officially surpassed total credit card debt in the United States in 2010, and is on track to exceed $1,000,000,000,000 during 2012.

Excessive student loan debt is impeding economic growth in the United States. Faced with excessive repayment burdens, many individuals are unable to start businesses, invest, or buy homes.

Because of soaring tuition costs, students often have no choice but to amass significant debt to obtain an education that is widely considered a prerequisite for earning a living wage.

On March 8, Congressman Hansen Clarke (D-Mich.) introduced H.R. 4170, the Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012.

Clarke exclaimed that the bill, “provides that if a student loan borrower makes payments equal to 10% of their discretionary income for a period of ten years the balance of their federal student loan debt will be forgiven. This provides student loan borrowers with a second chance for those who have been struggling financially and by cutting this debt to freeze up the money to invest on that will create new jobs across the country.”

The congressman had the House’s full attention as he passionately stated, “It’s time for congress to stand for the rights of student loan borrowers. It’s time to forgive student loan debts.”

Regardless of where you stand on the issue, the fact remains that student loan debt has been destroying an entire generation: “an entire “lost generation” is not starting families, buying cars, getting mortgages or otherwise contributing economically in the ways previous generations did. And by all accounts, the problem is actually way worse than even shrill news reports indicate- young people are drowning in a sea of debt before they ever have a chance to pay back the first cent.”

If the bill is passed interest would be capped at 3.4%, half of what it is currently, and would go into effect later this year.

It is thought that this bill would still hold borrowers responsible to pay back their loans and create opportunities for the 25-40 crowd to stimulate the economy.

Besides, if the economy really is getting better and the elusive good paying jobs resurface, then borrowers will be able to pay back most of their debt, right?

One person who was fortunate enough to receive a full ride is really ticked about the plan and posted on YouTube:

“Wow, good thing I did the responsible thing and got both my degrees on full scholarships. If I’d known about this garbage, I’d have gone to an Ivy. So much for personal responsibility. Maybe I’ll go risk all my savings in stocks I don’t understand. Surely Obama/Bernanke will come to my rescue. Most of us are taught personal responsibility when we’re growing up. Then we get older and realize most of the adults who taught us these values were busy ripping each other off our entire lives.”

But another person fired back after finding this individual to be a bit snooty:

“Lucky you. Lots more of us hardworking folks that had 4.0s all through college, have a decent sum of student loans and pay over 60 percent of our monthly income to student loans highly disagree with you. It’s not like it’s a free ride, it still requires ten years of payment. Please get off your high horse and have some empathy for honest work.”

Where do you stand on the issue? Do you think that most people are capable of finding good paying jobs to pay back their debt without reforms such as this one? Do you have a personal story that you would like to share?

Additionally, Apple is being investigated by the Department of Justice over e-book pricing. This week, the FTC also subpoenaed Apple in hopes of gaining further information in its antitrust investigation of Google.

Although these investigations are still pending, one can’t help but wonder what might come of them.

Is antitrust enforcement effective? Let us know in the comments.

An event held earlier this week hosted by the Federalist Society looked at these issues and found that many antitrust specialists are against regulation. The Honorable James Miller III, a senior advisor with the Husch Blackwell law firm, was among the panelists and spoke to WebProNews about the discussion.

As the former Budget Director under President Reagan and the former chair of the FTC, Miller told us that antitrust concerns often arise when one company wants to get an upper hand on another company.

“A lot of the big companies are trying to use the government to suppress competition,” he said. “It’s a very cheap way of getting a jump on your competition – having the government do this job for you.”

When done with these motives, he believes antitrust enforcement is wrong. The problem he has is that it gives the government the ability to dictate how companies should operate. In addition, he said the companies lose focus on their products as a result of the investigations, which ultimately harms consumers.

In December, search industry organization SEMPO voiced these same concerns on behalf of the search industry in a letter to the FTC, saying:

“Search is not a government-run utility, established by law and thus subject to bureaucratic oversight. It is a service provided to consumers and businesses by companies, which have set up their operations using their own principles, proprietary technologies and algorithms. Each company is free to develop its own approach, fulfilling the needs of its customers as it perceives them.”

What’s more, the costs involved in this scrutiny are staggering to both the companies involved and the economy. At the slightest news of an investigation, most companies see their stock drop. Interestingly, Miller told us that, while he was over the FTC, the agency tried to keep its work confidential to avoid such a reaction.

With industries such as technology specifically, Miller said that antitrust enforcement is especially difficult since the tech space changes at a rapid pace. In other words, a company that may appear to have monopoly power could, in theory, disappear in 6 months. As a result, he thinks the government should be hesitant about regulating it.

In response to the scrutiny that Google is getting over its search power, Miller said that consumers still have options. If a user doesn’t like the experience on the search engine, according to Miller, the act of clicking to another search engine is “easy as pie.” He went on to say that it would be difficult to make these choices any better or easier for consumers.

Although Miller did not take a position in the DoJ’s antitrust case against Microsoft, he told us today’s issues were very different.

“You have here an industry that is extraordinary, and America is leading the world,” he said. “To have our federal government come in and sort of mix things up, you need to be very careful that you don’t slow things down and hurt consumers in the process.”

Miller believes the government should approach tech companies with the future in mind. He said they should think about the long-term costs that these cases result in for the companies and taxpayers.

Interestingly, a new report from the Heritage Foundation on regulation as whole found that new federal regulations from the Obama administration are costing $46 billion dollars annually and that more expensive regulations are coming.

“It is correct that the regulation activity has grown leaps and bounds over the past several years and is imposing enormous costs on the American economy and reducing the rate of innovation and creativity from American companies,” said Miller.

Based on new research from the National Taxpayers Union, most consumers are against government intervention in search. As WebProNews reported last week, the study revealed that when users were asked if “the federal government should regulate the content and appearance of search engines and their results,” 64 percent strongly disagreed while only 3 percent strongly agreed.

Since it’s unclear how the DoJ and FTC will handle the current antitrust cases, it appears that this debate is a long way from being over.

Does antitrust enforcement produce harmful results? And, is the American economy suffering for this reason? Please share you thoughts.

So finds study author Mark Galasiewski, a researcher at Elliott Wave International (EWI) and the Socionomics Institute, both of Gainesville, Georgia. In Apple, Inc. — It’s Ripe For the Picking, Galasiewski points out rising popular backlash against Apple, the increasing susceptibility of Apple products to hacking attacks, derisive comments from Teamster President Jim Hoffa, and a 191-page FBI dossier detailing the “meanness” of the late Steve Jobs, as evidence of public negativity toward the corporation.

Galasiewski’s analysis of Apple follows up on a study conducted in May 2000 at the height of the U.S. government’s antitrust action against Microsoft Corporation. That study, done by the Institute’s executive director, Robert Prechter, traced the history of correlation between antitrust suits and market downturns. It showed that the U.S. government attacked Standard Oil ahead of the Panic of 1907; RCA ahead of the 1930-1932 stock market collapse that led to the Great Depression; and IBM one month after the 1969 top in the DJIA.

Prechter’s study also correctly predicted that the U.S. court decision against Microsoft in April 2000 would bode ill for equities. World stock markets declined for the next two and a half years.

Apple does not dominate its various markets as much as Microsoft, IBM, RCA and Standard Oil did when they attracted antitrust suits,” observes the study. But it’s nevertheless the “world’s largest technology company by revenue and profit, and the world’s largest company in terms of its market capitalization, which exceeded half a trillion dollars this week.”

There are a lot of “ifs” involved. But if the correlation between lawsuits and markets continues and if a federal judge hands down a decision against Apple and its partners soon, watch out for peaks, and downturns, and bears. Oh my.

Main photo source: http://iamsylvianita.tumblr.com.

In the latest quarterly survey, 8 percent of chief information officers (CIOs) interviewed said they plan to expand their IT departments, and 5 percent expect cutbacks, for a net 3 percent projected increase in hiring activity. Most CIOs plan to maintain their current staff levels: 85 percent of those surveyed plan no change in hiring, up 15 points from the first quarter. 87 percent of technology executives were somewhat or very optimistic about their companies’ growth prospects in the next three months, and 77 percent felt confident in their firms’ second-quarter investment in IT projects.

The findings are based on telephone interviews with more than 1,400 CIOs from companies across the United States with 100 or more employees. Executives are asked whether their companies plan to increase or decrease the number of full-time IT personnel on their staff during the coming quarter.

Key Findings

• Hiring has slowed, but companies are keeping their staff levels from the most recent spike last quarter. The net 3 percent increase in anticipated IT hiring activity is down seven points from a 10 percent increase in hiring activity last quarter. Eighty-five percent of CIOs plan to maintain their current staffing levels, up 15 points from the first quarter.
• Networking professionals are in greatest demand, with 16 percent of CIOs reported the greatest challenge in finding skilled professionals. They are followed closely by IT security (15%), and help desk/technical support professionals at 14 percent.
• Eighty-seven percent of CIOs are somewhat or very confident in their companies’ growth prospects in the next three months.
• Seventy-seven percent of technology executives expressed confidence in their firms’ second-quarter investments in IT projects.
• The Wholesale industry expects to do the most hiring at 12%, followed by 9% in the transportation industry. Manufacturing rounds out the category a 7 percent.

“Although hiring in the second quarter isn’t expected to be as robust as it was at the beginning of the year, the trend remains positive. Those in hot specialties, such as networking and IT security, will continue to be in strong demand,” said John Reed, executive director of Robert Half Technology. “Mobile media is an especially important area of growth right now.”

“The cloud is going to have a huge impact on job creation,” says Susan Hauser, Microsoft corporate vice president of the Worldwide Enterprise and Partner Group. “It’s a transformative technology that will drive down costs, spur innovation, and open up new jobs and skillsets across the globe.”

One way in which the cloud is helping companies to be more innovative is by freeing up IT managers to work on more mission-critical projects.

“We deployed Microsoft Office 365 and Windows Intune for one of our clients, and the comment we heard from the chief operations officer is that he can actually schedule a meeting with the IT director to talk about strategic applications,” said Carol Reid, sales director for Agile IT, a Microsoft Tier 3 Cloud Champion Member headquartered in San Diego, Calif. “Whereas before, the IT director was chasing fires and tending to pretty basic plumbing, he now has the bandwidth to pursue truly strategic projects that move the business forward.”

Microsoft has also staked their claim in the cloud with Microsoft Web Apps, their suite of Office software that is accessed via cloud computing, and SkyDrive, the company’s cloud storage service. The services are accessible via computer or mobile device.

“For most organizations, cloud computing should be a no-brainer, given its ability to increase IT innovation and flexibility, lower capital costs, and help generate revenues that are multiples of spending,” said John F. Gantz, chief research officer and senior vice president at IDC. “A common misperception is cloud computing is a job eliminator, but in truth it will be a job creator — a major one. And job growth will occur across continents and throughout organizations of all sizes because emerging markets, small cities and small businesses have the same access to cloud benefits as large enterprises or developed nations.”

The report also indicates specific industries will generate job growth at different rates, and that public cloud investments will drive faster job growth than private cloud investments. Microsoft also estimates that cloud–related jobs will accrue evenly to businesses with 500 or fewer employees and those with more than 500 employees.

The booming economies of China and India are expected to account for nearly half of all new cloud-related jobs. China, in fact, is estimated to create nearly five million jobs thanks to investments in cloud computing. To illustrate more on how cloud computing will develop across the world, Microsoft put together a small infographic that details the global impact of cloud services on different countries’ economies.

Ultimately, the cloud will be an important force in helping to restore worldwide economic health, Hauser said. “The cloud is the No. 1 topic among CIOs from around the world,” she added. “They want to know how they can use it to fuel growth. And they want to be sure they have the right people and skills in place to make it happen.”