YouTube

The news of Google acquiring Double-Click prompted me to spend a good part of my weekend analyzing the competitive implications of this seminal proposed acquisition for the future of the Internet.

My analysis focused on answering the following key questions of interest:

• What is Google's real competitive endgame with DoubleClick?
• Why is this acqusition likely to pass antitrust muster?
• Why will Google increasingly dominate Internet search?
• What other anticompetitive behaviors by Google position Google to dominate Internet advertising?

Summary of my conclusions:

It seems that having ~90% gross proift margins, a $145b market capitalization, and one of the highest-flying stocks in the market is just not enough resources for Google.

• Egads! They certainly don't have any money to pay more for upgrading Internet capacity for video! Ick!

Not surprisingly, Google CEO Eric Schimdt's has come up with yet another creative new answer for who should pay for upgrading Internet capacity for video --  the American taxpayer! Certainly not Google! 

• Internetnews caught Schmidt proposing the government effectively pick up Google's tab for using the Internet more than any other company.

• "Schmidt thinks the government should pay more of the rising [Internet] infrastructure costs. "We didn't ask for private citizens to pay for the highway system up front," he said. He said it would be "great" if the U.S. government recognized the advanced position other countries have in providing greater broadband access to their citizens as a competitive threat leading to further investment here."

• It's not surprising that Google wants to stick it to the taxpayer. Throughout the net neutrality debate, Google has supported the position that the consumer should pay for the upgrade of the Internet and not websites like Google.

Cost avoidance and sticking it to the taxpayer is part of a pattern for Google. 

MultiChannel News has a great write up of a tough speech on net neutrality by David Cohen, Executive Vice President of Comcast.

• “When you cut through the rhetoric, what they [Google, Yahoo] want from the federal government is new regulations that would guarantee them below cost-access to the broadband networks that carry most of the Internet content in this country,â€? Cohen said in a speech to the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia.

Kudos to Mr. Cohen for taking the gloves off and saying what needs to be said.

As we recently modified and updated the Netcompetition website to make it even easier to use and work with, we decided to take the little ant fable flash on net neutrality we produced, and that has been exclusively on our site for awhile, and post it to YouTube in order to broaden the audience.

Enjoy!

It's only a 1 minute 40 second flash.

There is a new updated net neutrality scareticker link to check out.

The bottom line here is that net neutrality is all about unsubstantiated allegations of problems.

• If net neutrality was in fact a real problem, wouldn't we have seen at least some evidence somewhere in the U.S. after 4 years and 2 months and counting?
• The FCC and the FTC have also both said they are vigilantly watching for any potential problems, but have not heard of any.
• What's there to be afraid of?
  

Moveon.org's SaveTheInternet blog is touting Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards' recent comments supporting net neutrality.

• So why am I bringing attention to this win by the other side?
• Well first I think its always important to genuflect to Moveon.org's prowess when they get people to lip synch their talking points "song."

We all know politics is often driven by fear and by creating boogeymen where none really exist -- and at that, Moveon.org is a master.  

The Politico ran a story April 9th called the "The Human Face of Net Neutrality" that grossly exagerates the "net roots" involvement on net neutrality. 

The article implies that there is somehow a difference between the "Moveon.org net roots" and traditional broadband lobbying.

• Give me a break.
• Moveon.org's Free Press/SaveTheInternet is a very sophisticated Washington lobbying operation whose schtick is simulating "grass roots."
• Lets be real.
• Moveon.org is basically a 3 million person email list, where Moveon.org's Washington puppeteers pull the strings from the "top down" to "simulate" a "bottoms up" groundswell political movement on net neturality.   
• I don't buy it.

All this Politico article reports is that Moveon.org was able to "top down" organize dozens of meetings during recess with dozens of members on net neutrality.

The body of evidence from mainstream sources that Google systematically steals other's property continues to pile up.

• Today's Wall Street Journal article: "Google apologizes to Sohu for Web Tool's Similarities"
• "Sohu.com Inc. complained Sunday that the new software appeared to copy material from Sohu's Sogou search engine." "In a statement, Google acknowledged that web surfers have pointed out that some material came from "non-Google data sources." ... Google said: "We are willing to face up to our mistake and willing and offer an apology to users and the Sohu company"
• While that may sound nice, the article also clearly referred to Google's lack of transparency on these types of issues:
• Google "gave no indication of what it did, how much was from other sources or how it was included in the new tool."... A Google "spokeswoman said she had no additional information."
• It is standard operating procedure for Google not to be transparent. Their secrecy is legion and does not inspire trust.

So Google supporters are probably asking "so what?"

•  Why this matters is it adds to the mountain of evidence that Google operates "over the line" of legal behavior and/or acceptable business practices.

 Bottom line: Google likes to brag about its culture of pursuing "innovation without permission."

• Its just a fancy phrase for a business approach which tolerates and glamourizes trespass and theft to turn a buck.

In one of my recent Internet searches I came accross a very interesting historical article that appears to predate Moveon.org's creation of SaveTheInternet to promote  so called "net neutrality."

The article in the NYT from fourteen months ago in February of 2006 called "Plan for fees on some emails spurs protest" show that Moveon.org is no different than any other special interest in looking out for themselves.

• The article explains that Yahoo and AOL were looking to charge bulk emailers a quarter of a cent to a cent per email to deliver their emails.
• That could have been a big new bill for Moveon.org, which has a three million person email list according to the article. 

When you connect the dots of when all this was occurring -- it is pretty clear that while Moveon.org and consumer groups claimed to be saving the Internet -- they were really asking for self-serving special interest legislation, which would protect them from paying a more market-based-rate for their emailings -- which have to be among the largest bulk emails in the country.

How Moveon.org was able to mobilize so many groups is that they played to their fears that they all might have to pay more in the future because in a market-based system they might have to pay for what they use.

• So they have helped construct this elaborate net neutrality policy movement to simply protect themselves from having to pay a market-based rate.

What annoys me is that they call broadband companies self-serving, but they are no different.

• This obvious hypocrisy is off the charts.   

It seems that more folks have Google's "number."

• National Journal's Tech Daily reports that the State of Utah has passed legislation to protect trademark owners in Utah from a new kind of identity theft, i.e. search engines (Google) abusing trademark ownership by selling trademarked keyword advertising to competitors.
• Good for Utah!
• Glad somebody is standing up to companies that systematically profit from theft of others' property under the lame guise of "Internet freedom."

It seems Google is learning the lesson the hard way -- that those in glass houses should not throw stones.