Only Google's competitors need be 'open' -- per Google and its supporters

Google and its minions expect all of Google's competitors to be 'open' -- but not Google. 

• If openness and net neutrality are such important principles, why doesn't Google abide by them?
• And why don't Google's net neutrality allies insist that their leader, Google, lead by example, and not tarnish them with an obvious double standard? 

Consider the following troubling and mounting evidence that Google itself is becoming the anti-competitive threat that they claim all their big competitors are.

Google's G1-phone (Android): Per CNET's review of the G1-phone, "There's no option to change the search box to use search from Microsoft or Yahoo." How is that open or neutral? Especially given Google's unquestioned dominance of search?

• Remember Google has 70% share of search queries per Hitwise, and now produces 95% of all Internet advertising profits in the US.
• Also remember the FCC's net neutrality principles clearly apply to Google: "...consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers and content providers."

Google's Chrome Browser: Google's new Chrome browser has an "omnibox" which bundles Google's dominant search business with the address bar.

• What this means is that if a consumer uses Google's Chrome browser, they forfeit any choice in directly gaining access to the content of their choice in the address bar by typing in the address of a website.
• With Omnibox, Google has de facto created the monopoly page where you can only go to Google's pages where Google's ads are displayed and the consumer is blocked, degraded and impaired in directly reaching the content and domain address of the consumers choice.
• How is that open or neutral? Isn't that exactly what Google and its supporters claim they are opposed to?

Google's Opaque Auctions: As the Association of National Advertisers have complained to the DOJ in the Google-Yahoo deal, customers of Google's so-called keyword auctions are not fully and openly informed about what they need to do to have a chance in succeeding in the auction. 

• Google's customers are blocked, degraded and impaired in the auction process by a discriminatory 'quality score' that is necessary to win the auction but is a big mystery to everyone but Google.
• Isn't this exactly the kind of anti-competitive discriminatory behavior Google and its net neutrality supporters claim they are vehemently opposed to?    

Bottom line: Google and its supporters blatant and repeated double standard on applying openness and net neutrality, is more proof that 'openness' and 'net neutrality' aren't really principles as they represent them to be, but are really special favors for special interests.

• Google's public policy agenda is to get the Government to tilt the playing field to advantage Google and disadvantage Google's competitors.