Congress

Evidence continues to mount that the Google-DoubleClick merger presents serious anti-competitive concerns.

Let me share a series of antitrust developments over the last several days that cumulatively are very significant.

First, and most ominous, is that Yahoo, the weak #2 in the search market, which used to use Google's search engine, has been actively considering exiting the search business and outsourcing to #1 dominant Google or distant #3 Microsoft, because investors want the greatly expanded investment returns such a revenue-enhancing and cost cutting move would generate for shareholders.  

If you missed The Washington Post's Steve Pearlstein's incisive and on point critique of how the campaign for net neutrality has morphed, it surely deserves a read -- its short.

See the header "Whiny Techies II" ("Whiny Techies I" is funny too.)  

The San Francisco Chronicle has a precious article about Google's insatiable appetite for special treatment/corporate welfare: "Google execs take off with landing privileges at Moffet Field."  

CNET's respected Declan McCullagh produced a sound and fair analysis of what ails net neutrality, which I recommend as a good read on the state of play on the issue. Below is the comment I posted on his piece.

• "Well done Declan. You've produced a sound and fair analysis of why net neutrality has failed to gain traction.
• My only significant quibble is that I would have made more of a point that clearly the issue is not grass roots, but a well orchestrated campaign by Moveon.org and its functional affilliates Free Press, Public Knowledge and the New America foundation -- and its lead corporate sponsor/ally -- Google.
• They have obviously made a political campaign decision to go "dormant" on net neutrality as Mr. Brodsky suggested.
  
• When the Moveon.org crowd decides to re-unleash their dogs on the issue it will burst back onto the scenes again.
  
• My most important takeaway on all this is that this net neutrality "dormancy" exposes this issue for what it is: a manufactured bogus policy issue pushed into the forefront by very sophisticated political/policy operatives -- there is zero grass roots groundswell for net neutrality here -- only millions of Moveon.org email-list puppets on a string... and an apparently insatiable appetite for corporate welfare by Google..."

The US Department of Justice in comments to the FCC said that it is opposed to "net neutrality" per an AP story.

Now both the US Department of Justice and The US Federal Trade Commission, the agencies legally responsible for investigating anti-competitive practices, officially have stated opposition to net neutrality regulation/legislation. 

It is never a good omen for a merger's approval outlook, when EU antitrust authorities can't wait to investigate the impact of the merger and proactively inititiate their own antitrust investigation -- before their official process even gets started.

Google's antitrust lawyers have to be bummed by the development reported by Reuters that: "EU questions customers over Google-DoubleClick deal."

The Financial Times had a noteworthy article about Google's role as an editor of content and defender of free speech -- when Google finds it convenient: "Thailand lifts Youtube ban after Google agrees to block some clips."

This article is an interesting juxtaposition to Google CEO Eric Schmidt's very recent comments on the importance of free speech at a speech before the Progress and Freedom Foundation. 

• "We need to defend freedom of speech as more speech comes on line. ...Let’s do this in the right way. Let’s preserve the openness and the freedom of speech principles. You could use Internet censorship, for example, as a non-tariff trade barrier, which we all need to fight because governments, especially non-U.S. governments, have an incentive to some degree to control the populations -- to do all the things that are obvious if you’re afraid of empowering your citizens."

 The FT article is a good opportunity to review if Google's actions support Google's rhetoric when it comes to Google defending free speech...

A major reason why the stakes are so high in the FTC's review of the Google-DoubleClick merger is how remarkably fast online advertising is overtaking other advertising industry segments that have been around for decades.

An important development occurred just before the long Labor day weekend that I didn't want people to miss. Media Daily News reported that: "Internet displaces radio as fourth largest ad medium."

By far the most interesting Internet development I have seen in weeks was a New York Times piece by Noam Cohen called: "Whiting out the ads, but at what cost?"

I always enjoy reading the Britain-based Economist's take on things American because they bring a detached, across-the-pond, critical perspective that often is very illuminating.

• That is clearly the case in The Economist's great expose: "Inside the Googleplex" and their editorial: "Who's afraid of Google?"

Relevant to Google-DoubleClick merger: