You are here Open Internet
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-08-22 17:10
Google has another big "oops!" problem where its actions in the marketplace do not match the line they are feeding to the FTC/EC antitrust investigators who are reviewing Google's proposed acquisition of dominant ad-server DoubleClick.
So what's the new big contradiction/problem?
- Google's lawyers have been arguing to FTC/EC authorities that Google is not a competitor to DoubleClick because Google only does search and DoubleClick only serves display ads.
- How can there be any antitrust problem if they don't compete argues Google?
- Well today Google's YouTube network has begun selling overlay ads to select videos running on YouTube.
- According to ComScore, YouTube is the Internet's most-visited video website with ~189 million visitors in July.
- That means that Google is now the exclusive ad server of display/rich media advertising to the largest video site in the world.
Its now hard for Google to still claim with a straight face that they aren't in the ad-serving business and that they don't compete directly with DoubleClick.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-08-22 13:47
Google continues its self-serving campaign of "open for you, but not for me."
The master of the double standard, Google loves to claim that Google is "open" and even has the gall to name its net neutrality coalition the "Open Internet Coalition."
However, does Google really support "open" principles? In other words, Google talks the talk, but does it walk the walk?
Elise Ackerman of the San Jose Mercury News had a noteworthy and relevant article on this issue: "Google's growth has come at a price."
Well Google, if openness is truly an important principle to Google, why not agree to make Google's search algorithm, which is the industry's ultimate "Black Box", "open" to all so all can benefit?
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2007-08-21 13:56
Google must be worried about their Doubleclick acquisition having arranged an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today entitled Googling 'Monopoly' by PFF President Tom Lenard and Emory University professor Paul Rubin.
- While Google must be thankful for the placement in the WSJ, they have to be bummed about the unfortunate title.
- Google loves to generously slather the "opoly" epithet on any formidable competitor who is in their way, so it must drive them crazy when it sticks to them in the WSJ.
First, let me say that I genuinely respect Mr Lenard and Mr. Rubin, and understand that on antitrust issues, analysts can honestly disagree on outcomes and impacts.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-08-20 22:34
Liberal blogger Matt Stoller of OpenLeft has a post at Save the Internet that lamely tries to rewrite "the history of net neutrality" in his commentary about his interview with FCC Commisioner Michael Copps.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2007-08-20 12:52
A couple of readers kindly pointed out that I made my own oops in my early August blog post: "Oops! Googleopolist's wife speaks out of school on pending merger."
I regret any confusion I created in mistaking that "Google product manager" Susan Wojcicki" was married to Google co-founder Sergey Brin -- in fact she is the sister-in-law of Google co-founder Sergey Brin, and also one of the earliest employees of Google.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-08-03 17:06
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2007-08-03 15:48
It seems that our friends up North may also be concerned about the anti-competitive impact of the Google-Double-Click merger.
CIPPIC, the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, is requesting that the Canadian authorities review the Google-Double-Click merger to determine if it is anti-competitive.
I've done a lot of work on the facts surrounding this merger case and am very confident that the more authorities learn about the facts of the case -- the more concerned and troubled they will get about the profound and broad implications this merger portends for the future of the Internet business model for accessing content.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-08-02 18:26
The outrage over Google-Youtube's complicity in rampant content theft and piracy continues to spread around the world.
-
-
"A coalition of Japanese television, music and film companies slammed YouTube Thursday, saying the online video sharing service was not doing enough to rid the site of cartoons and other clips that infringe copyright." ...
-
"There is no middle ground," Matsutake said. "We demand that all copyrighted material be removed immediately."
Let's focus on the corporate scofflaw pattern here: American, Japanese, and European content owners accross a wide swath of content industries are all outraged and suing Google for theft.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2007-08-02 09:27
Johna Till Johnson of Network World, has got Google's number in the article "Net Neutrality? Google, go first!"
-
"Forget "don't be evil" -- Google's real motto is: "Just trust us (and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain).""
"Sorry, fellas, I'm not the trusting sort. And I always worry about the man behind the curtain. The reality behind the propaganda is this: The "open" company's considerable fortunes are based around the world's most proprietary search engine. And as for "neutral" -- try Googling Google, and you may notice something surprising: very few negative comments on the company pop up. Odd, no?"
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Wed, 2007-08-01 14:31
I wanted to commend and spotlight a critically important and completely under-reported/under-appreciated part of the FCC Chairman's statement on the 700 MHz auction released yesterday:
- "We must continue to encourage the critical investment needed to build the next generation wireless network. Since I have been Chairman, I have advocated strongly that applying network neutrality obligations, unbundling, or mandatory wholesale requirements to networks can undermine investment incentives. I do not support such regulations. The Order we adopt today does not apply these regulations to this block or any other block." [bold added for emphasis]
This is very important, welcome, commendable, and strong affirmation of the FCC's broad deregulation policy -- that was completely lost in the gaggle of press coverage.
Pages
|