Yahoo's announced earnings confirm that Google continues to take substantial search advertising revenue and profit share in the first full quarter of financial results since the DOJ blocked the Google-Yahoo Ad Partnership as anti-competitive.

• Yahoo's owned and operated search advertising revenues fell 3% compared to Google-site search advertising revenues which grew 9% -- a 12% differential -- signalling significant market share gain by Google at Yahoo's expense.
• Yahoo's affilitate (syndicated) advertising search revenues fell 16% compared to Google-site syndicated advertising search revenues which fell 3% -- a 13% differential -- again signalling significant and comparable market share gain by Google at Yahoo's expense.

Google's dominance of search advertising profit share is even greater than that of revenues because historically the only other publicly-traded search advertising players with significant search advertising revenues: Microsoft, AOL, and IAC/Ask.com all consistently lose money in this search advertising segment.

The crux of the Google Book settlement will be whether the Court effectively sanctions the creation of one de facto world digital book library, or whether it will facilitate the continued proliferation of many libraries of digital books throughout the world. 

• Put differently, will the legal settlement of the greatest alleged book theft in world history -- de facto concentrate control over access to digital books into the hands of only one entity -- Google (the alleged copyright violator)...
• Or will the settlement preserve the current longstanding competitive/cooperative system of  public, private, and academic libraries where control over access to books is dispersed among many independent and diverse organizations around the country and the world?  

The Internet Archive, a "non-profit library," recently petitioned the Court to try and ensure the diverse latter outcome and not the concentrated former outcome.

There is a new circular logic argument being offered that in effect takes fast rural deployment of broadband hostage to the net neutrality movement's latest demands for net neutrality to be put above all other broadband or Internet goals.

• A post by Stacey Higginbotham of Gigaom effectively connects Free Press' latest demand that the FCC apply net neutrality to wireless for the first time and argues in her post that if wireless providers are allowed to apply for stimulus grants for rural broadband without mandated net neutrality, they somehow could control what a subscriber could access on the Internet.

Hopefully, the FCC, NTIA and RUS folks that are working on this won't waste time running in circles trying to make sense out of this new circular logic.

• It is not a new argument. And it is not logical.
• It's simply an assertion dressed up as an argument that net neutrality should be the supreme concern, and come before, and be above, all other broadband or other priorities, like economic growth, job creation, broadband deployment/investment etc.

How is this circular logic that doesn't make sense?

The main takeaway from Google's earnings is Google continues to take substantial revenue market share -- it is becoming increasingly dominant in search advertising and search syndication despite the economic downturn.  While Google's growth has slowed, its market share gains don't appear to have slowed as much -- evidence of Google's many network effects.  

• Google grew 6% overall, however when you break out the revenue mix one can see the network effects at work -- because there is a 12% differential within the Google model between direct Google site revenues, which grew 9%, and indirect Google Network revenues (from other website partners) which fell 3%.
• We will have to wait and see what Yahoo, Microsoft, AOL, Ask/IAC and others report in the coming days, but unless there is a major surprise they all will have negative search advertising revenue growth or at best very slow revenue growth that is less than Google's 6%. 
  • When those data points come in we will be able to better confirm how much more market share Google has taken in the first quarter of this year. 

In short, the strongest gets stronger, at smaller players' expense.  

Given that eBay's announced spin-off/IPO of Skype in 2010 is a material market event, this high-profile IPO represents a potentially tectonic development in eBay-Skype's (and FreePress') push for wireless net neutrality/Carterfone regulations and applying the FCC's broadband principles to wireless providers for the first time. There are much broader implications of this market development than many appreciate.

Some brief background information is helpful to understand the broader implications:  

Why is one of the most-serious identified internet/cybersecurity risks currently affecting the Internet and network operators not on the FCC's radar screen?

• More specifically, why does a search of the FCC's website for the term "conficker" return zero results? (see below)

A Google search on "conficker"returned 4.86 million results.

The open Internet's inherent vulnerability to bad actors made the front page of the Wall Street Journal today in an important-to-read article: "Electricity Grid in U.S. Penetrated by Spies." 

Now we better can much better appreciate why Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Rockefeller is so concerned about cybersecurity and committed to making protection of the Nation's critical cybrastructure a much more urgent priority for the Internet.

The WSJ article hit the core internet problem on the head in the article -- its a lack of accountability:

• "It is nearly impossible to know whether or not an attack is government-sponsored because of the difficulty in tracking true identities in cyberspace."

This problem in this article spotlights why cybersecurity and online safety are very real and pressing problems on the Internet today. It is surprising and alarming why there is not as much public focus on the very real problems of the Internet as there is on potential unproven Internet problems.

Part V

Anyone watching the Internet content marketplace closely is witnessing the formation of a critical mass of high-powered opposition to the Internet Free Culture ethos that no one should be required to ask for permission or payment to use content on the Internet.

• Something big is afoot.
• Powerful forces in the traditional scarcity economy, i.e. Big Media, are no longer rolling over anymore, but are finally pushing back against the abundance ecommony ethos that asserts that content on the Internet is common property that anyone should be able to use as they wish without permission or payment.  

The possible tipping point here is the newspaper industry's belated realization that giving away their content for free online, in return for traffic, has been an unmitigated disaster because it is not an economic or sustainable business model. 

FreePress in petitioning the FCC to apply its Broadband Principles to wireless (because they currently do not apply to wireless) effectively has conceded that broadband is not the duopoly market they have long alleged, but is a competitive marketplace.

Wow. Daily Internet traffic in Sweden immediately fell more than 40% after a new Swedish law went into force cracking down on illegal file-sharing. The new law obligates ISPs to to report the IP-addresses of suspected copyright violators to copyright owners.

• Per an AP story: "Statistics from the Netnod Internet Exchange, an organization measuring Internet traffic, suggest that daily online activity dropped more than 40 percent after the law took effect on Wednesday. Henrik Ponten of the Swedish Anti-Piracy Bureau welcomed the plunge in Internet traffic as a sign that file-swappers are reducing their activity for fear of getting caught. "There's no other explanation for it," he said."

Seldom is there such glaring evidence of direct cause and effect between a policy-change and behavior-change on the Internet. To the extent that this initial effect is lasting and proves applicable to other nation's circumstances, what can we learn from this Swedish precursor/example?

Lesson 1: It proves people act more responsibly on the Internet when there is an increased liklihood of getting caught and prosecuted for illegal behavior. More accountability equals more deterrence.