I kid you not. Google's latest antitrust defense, from the mouth of Dana Wagner, Google's lead antitrust lawyer, is: "We want to be Santa Claus. We want to make lots of toys that people like playing with. But if you don't want to play with our toys, you've got us."

• See the quote for yourself at the very end of a Globe and Mail article entitled: "Google: we're not evil and we're not a monopoly either."
  • Google's Mr. Wagner continues: “In a West Coast company run by engineers, I don't think there was much attention paid to being in Ottawa, being in D.C. and telling your story,” Mr. Wagner says. “If you don't tell your story, other people do it for you.”

Let me attempt to unpack the irony of this new story/metaphor of which Google has taken ownership. 

Most companies when they tell their corporate "story" try to "put their best foot forward," but no one but Google would think to try and slip jolly megalomaniacal corpulence down the narrow chimney of public credibility.  

Only Google would have so little real-world self-awareness as to choose to wrap itself in the beloved mythical role of Santa Claus who has the unique power to decide who has been good or "evil" during the last year, and the unique power to reward those who have been "good" in Google's eyes with toys and punish those who have been "evil" with coal in their stocking. 

In August, the FCC commissioned the Harvard Berkman Center to conduct a "Review of Broadband Studies" "to help inform the FCC's efforts in developing the National Broadband Plan."  

• The Harvard draft report flunks several core tests necessary for its fndings to have credibility.

  Flunks "independence" test: The FCC touted in its announcement that the report would be an "independent review" and the report itself claims to be an "independent" assessment.

  • If the FCC wanted an "independent" external review, why was their no open notification or open bidding process for this important FCC project to allow transparency and competition to bolster confidence in the "independence" claim?
  • Why was the study sole-sourced to only one entity, and to an entity well-known to have strong well-developed advocacy views that broadband should be a public utility, and not a more widely-recognized "independent" entity without a publicly obvious stake in the outcome?   

  Flunks the "comprehensive" test: The FCC claimed in the announcement that the review would be "comprehensive."

In stark contrast to their opposition to the Google-Yahoo ad agreement, the American Association of Advertising Agencies (the 4As) is now urging the DOJ to quickly approve the Microsoft-Yahoo search agreement because they "believe that Yahoo! and Microsoft's proposal to combine their technologies and search platforms is good for advertisers, marketing services agencies, web publishers, and consumers."

• This letter is powerful evidence that the advertising industry remains deeply concerned about Google's dominance of search advertising, and welcomes the prospect of a more viable search advertising competitive alternative -- i.e. the proposed Microsoft-Yahoo's search agreement.

Pasted below is a copy of Google News listing from today that highlights only a very Google-friendly quote from Gigi Sohn in a slew of articles that are tough on Google's top public policy priority -- net neutrality.

• Is this coincidence?
• Is this a one time instance or mistake?
• Or is Google using Google News as an undisclosed advocacy arm of Google?
• It certainly wouldn't be neutral or transparent if Google is using Google News to promote its side of a pet and controversial public policy priority without any disclosure... 

I wonder what Google's explanation of this potential problem is... or if anyone at the FCC is interested in learning more about how Google programs its Google News algorithm...

72 House Democrats wrote the FCC pushing back on the direction the FCC apparently is headed in its proposed Open Internet/net neutrality regulations to be voted on October 22nd. From the letter:

• "... it is out strong belief that continued progress in expanding the reach and capabilities of broadband networks will require the Commission to reiterate, not repudiate its historic committment to competition, private investment, and a restrained regulatory approach."
• "We are confident that an objective review of the facts will reveal the critical role that competition and private investment have played -- and of necessity will continue to play -- in building robust broadband networks that are safe, secure and open."
• "In light of the growth and innovation in new applications that the current regime has enabled, as compared to the limited evidence demonstrating any tangible harm, we would urge you to avoid tentative conclusions which favor government regulation."
• "...we remain suspicious of conclusions based on slogans rather than substance and of policies that restrict and inhibit the very innovation and growth that we all seek to achieve." 

It was signed by the 72 House Democrats listed below:

72 Signers: 

The most basic smart network innovation and obviously reasonable network management is already being chilled by the FCC's expected absolute ban on any Internet traffic prioritization.

The much under-appreciated trend is how rapidly much of the Internet is effectively being supplanted by "GooglesNet," given that Google's data-centers uniquely and constantly capture and store current copies of the Internet's roughly trillion web-pages. GooglesNet is not transparent and is increasingly becoming a closed dark fiber shadow of the "Open Internet."

If WSJ reports are correct about the FCC's new proposed net neutrality rules, they are not at all about "preserving" the status quo, but actually would represent a radical change from longstanding law, policy and precedent.

• Per the WSJ: "Under Mr. Genachowski's proposal, the FCC would change its current net-neutrality guidance, which details consumers' online rights, and focus instead on what Internet service providers are not allowed to do." 

If this description is true, the proposed regulations would not be status quo at all because they would:

• Flip from being all about what consumers can do, do being all about what ISPs cannot do; 
• Abandon over fifteen years of bipartisan consensus in Congress around not regulating or taxing the Internet;
• Abandon five years of bipartisan consensus and 5-0 FCC precedents to treat Internet access as an un-rregulated information service; and 
• Reverse longstanding law, policy and precedent to promote competition and reduce regulation with a new policy that promotes regulation and reduces competition. 

If the FCC's rules emerge as reported, this is not at all about "preserving" anything, its about radically changing an Internet ecosystem that currently works and serves consumers exceptionally well.

If the FCC's proposed Open Internet regulations turn out to be "fair" and "fact-based" as promised, the FCC won't be able to gerrymander a "network" definition that allows Google, -- the world's largest and fastest-growing Internet network per Arbor Networks' new study -- to escape from new FCC net neutrality regulation.

The facts that Google should be subject to any "fair" network neutrality regulations are overwhelming.

First, according to a just-announced Arbor Networks study, the single "largest study of global Internet traffic since the start of the commercial Internet," (involving the top 100+ ISPs, including Google)...