September 21, 2009

FCC Chairman Pushes for Net Neutrality

Today, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski gave a speech at The Brookings Institution outlining two new principles in his support for net neutrality, adding to the four the FCC previously embraced under the chairmanship of Michael Powell.

The new two are:

Preventing Internet access providers from discriminating against particular Internet content or applications, while allowing for reasonable network management.
Ensuring that Internet access providers are transparent about the network management practices they implement.

The previous four principles are:

Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice
Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;
Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network
Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers

"The Internet is an extraordinary platform for innovation, job creation, investment, and opportunity. It has unleashed the potential of entrepreneurs and enabled the launch and growth of small businesses across America," said Chairman Genachowski. "It is vital that we safeguard the free and open Internet."

Google, a proponent of net neutrality, wasted no time in supporting the Chairman. Vint Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist took to the Google Public Policy blog to voice his support. He wrote:

If consumers had a wide choice of broadband service providers, preserving an open Internet might not be such a critical issue. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans have few (if any) choices in selecting a provider. As a result, these providers are in a position to influence whether and how consumers and producers can use the on-ramps to the Internet -- and we've already seen several examples of discriminatory actions or threats that impair openness.

Based on Cerf's statement, wouldn't it make more sense to simply increase competition, which is currently hindered by regulation? Carriers who fight for customers are less likely to restrict access to websites, which has been tested by cable companies offering tiered Internet plans. These plans, of course, are not very popular with consumers, who do indeed want access to an open internet, thus making competition a viable tool in the pursuit of said open internet.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 12:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

June 27, 2009

China Blocks Google, YouTube This Week, Could It Become Permanent

Seems the Chinese government used the "Great Firewall" to block Google, YouTube and Gmail for a couple of days this week, Fox News reported.

Seems access to Google both in English and Chinese was blocked for part of Wednesday and Thursday in parts of China. Fox News stated, "The outages occurred after China accused the Internet behemoth of spreading pornography among its citizens. Google was said to be investigating the service disruptions."

Given China has its own internal search engines and the government has strict control, Google has acknowledged it is censoring search results in the country.

Foreign Affairs Ministry spokesman, Qin Gang said Google China "is a company operating within China to provide Internet search services, and it should strictly abide by Chinese laws and regulations," Fox News reported.

As Britain's Telegraph reports, Google established the localized search engine Google.cn four years ago, agreeing to filter results based on government censorship restrictions and content requirements, but Chinese officials say that has not been the case due to its links with Google.com.

"Google China's website has not installed filters to block pornography in accordance with the laws and regulations of our nation," said the CIIRC - the China Internet Illegal Information Reporting Centre, according to the U.K. Guardian. "A lot of overseas Internet pornographic information has spread into our nation by way of this website."

Given nearly half the world's population lives in China Google could be losing a major market which is just now starting to become an active consumer online. Google had said they would address China's requests but with the 60th anniversary of the Communisy regime coming, it seems they did not do it quickly enough.

TechCrunch asked commenters in one of their blog posts to help clarify what was happening in China and received information from "a person seemingly located in Xiamen, China" that , "says Google Books, Google Talk and Image Search have also been blocked in the comment section of this post. Other services like Blog Search, Translate, Maps and Analytics are reportedly borked as well. YouTube has been blocked in the country for quite some time already".

Posted by Frank Watson at 2:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

April 29, 2009

Another DOJ Antitrust Investigation for Google, This Time for Book Search Settlement

Months after Google pulled out of a search ad deal with Yahoo! due to a Department of Justice antitrust investigation, the search engine is facing a similar battle - this time with its Book Search settlement.

You may remember that Google reached an agreement with Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers (AAP) last October. The deal would resolve a long-standing class-action lawsuit brought by the group. A court still needs to approve the deal, and a hearing is scheduled for October 7, 2009 (rescheduled from June 11).

Critics fear that the agreement would give Google an exclusive license to profit from millions of books, including orphan books where the authors cannot be contacted or whose rights are unknown.

However, on Google's site set up to address questions and inquiries regarding the settlement (Googlebooksettlement.com), Google says its rights are non-exclusive.

An inquiry doesn't mean that the DOJ will nix the settlement. But the DOJ does share some of the aforementioned concerns of critics, despite Google's assurance that the deal is non-exclusive.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 5:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Google Starts Small Business Network to Influence Government

Google has started an initiative called the "Small Business Network" which is designed to influence legislation regarding business. One of the first actions is to attempt to have a say on the $7 billion from the recent stimulus bill that is set aside for broadband.

Another important issue for the network will be promoting an open internet. This is something Google has been promoting for awhile, with its involvement in last year's spectrum auction, their support for freeing up white space tv spectrum, and their participation in the Internet for Everyone Initiative.

Of course, Google already has an ear with the President. Google CEO Eric Schmidt was recently appointed to President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 12:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

February 25, 2009

Google Takes EU Side in Microsoft IE Monopoly Case; Will It Come Back to Bite?

Google is siding with the European Commission in its disapproval of Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer with Windows. Google says that Microsoft has an unfair advantage in the browser market as a result of this practice.

But will such a stance come back to bite Google in the butt? In 2007, Google released Android, a mobile operating system, and then last year Chrome, an internet browser. In the next year or two, Android will begin being released on netbooks (aka small laptops). Google could use that opportunity to bundle Chrome and increase their browser market share, but they'll now face criticism if they do.

And as one smart commenter on the Google Public Policy blog pointed out, there's no criticism of Apple bundling their Safari browser with Mac OS (not to mention the constant requests to do so for Windows users who have downloaded iTunes).

Sure, Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the browser market with Safari (and there's a good reason for that until perhaps yesterday's updated release of the browser), but what other purpose would they be attempting to achieve with the bundle?

Of course, Google's CEO Eric Schmidt currently sits on the board of Apple, so it wouldn't be prudent for them to criticize Apple for the same practice. But things are bound to get a little dicey on all fronts as Google also competes with Apple, maker of the popular iPhone.

Siding with the EU is also an interesting move just months after they canceled a partnership with Yahoo! which would have increased their dominance in the search advertising field.

Google has yet to master politicking, and watching them in this regulatory space should be interesting indeed.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 1:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

January 29, 2009

Google Behind Tool to Detect ISP Blocking

It's no secret that Google is an avid supporter of net neutrality legislation. Now, in an effort to further their cause, they've partnered with he New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute, the PlanetLab Consortium, and academic researchers to create M-Lab (Measurement Lab).

M-Lab is designed to help detect whether an internet service provider (ISP) is blocking an internet application. This type of research has been attempted before, but Google says the lack of resources such as servers has held the research back.

That's where Google comes in. They'll be supplying 36 servers to 12 locations in the U.S. and Europe. M-Lab will collect data on the blocking or interference by ISPs of user internet use, including BitTorrent.

What do you think of M-Lab? Let us know in the comments.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 1:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

December 15, 2008

Google, Lessig Defend Net Neutrality Positions (Mis) Stated in Wall Street Journal

The Wall Street Journal has caused quite a stir by publishing a story saying that leading proponents of net neutrality have been softening on their positions. Few blogs fell for the embellishment and Google and Lawrence Lessig have defended their not-so-shifty positions.

Google's Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel, took to the company's public policy blog to clarify:

Despite the hyperbolic tone and confused claims in Monday's Journal story, I want to be perfectly clear about one thing: Google remains strongly committed to the principle of net neutrality, and we will continue to work with policymakers in the years ahead to keep the Internet free and open.

Lessig, a professor of internet law at Stanford and keynote speaker at last week's SES Chicago, explained how the Journal got his position correct, but the idea that his position new is wrong: I distinguish between "zero price regulations" (such as Markey's bill (which I say I am against)) and what I called "zero discriminatory surcharge rules" (which I say I am for). The zero discriminatory surcharge rules are just that -- rules against discriminatory surcharges -- charging Google something different from what a network charges iFilm. The regulation I call for is a "MFN" requirement -- that everyone has the right to the rates of the most favored nation.

This is precisely the position that the Journal breathlessly attributes to me today. It represents no change -- no "softening" no "shift" in my views.

When it comes to net neutrality, no matter what side of the issue you tend to take, one thing is for sure: journalists and PR people who misunderstand how the internet works are only adding to the confusion.

Google also seems to be learning little from its recent failure in Washington, which cost them a search advertising deal with Yahoo!. Unless they learn to be proactive instead of reactive, they're going to consistently lose to more experienced players. Then again, being against regulation for search advertising and for regulation regarding net neutrality is a delicate stance to balance.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 11:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

October 20, 2008

Google Learns to Navigate Washington the Hard Way

Google is finally starting to learn that the Schoolhouse Rock song, "I'm Just a Bill," forgot to include the part about lobbying.

Google opened up a Washington, DC office a few years back to handle the minimal lobbying it was doing. But according to a story in the New York Times, Google has been learning the ways of Washington through the school of hard knocks.

And they may not have graduated in time to address the current regulatory concern over their search advertising partnership with Yahoo.

Perhaps Google is just a tad too used to being the big dog in Silicon Valley. But DC is a different culture. Every industry is represented there, from sugar growers to plastic surgeons to the nuanced niches in tech.

And despite an increasingly digital culture, face time is crucial in DC. The NYT article says Google is getting poor attendance marks for its presence at political events.

Meanwhile, Microsoft knows how the machine works, and they've been keeping it well oiled in order to influence groups to opposed the Google-Yahoo deal. Even the Latino Farmers and Ranchers have climbed on board the opposition bandwagon.

Microsoft is now suggesting that Google is losing the debate and resorting to calling out lobbying as the reason why instead of regulation.

Of course, when it comes to antitrust regulation, Microsoft calling anyone out is like the pot calling the kettle black.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 9:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

September 23, 2008

Larry Page to Keynote White Spaces Advocacy Event in DC

Tomorrow, Google co-founder Larry Page will keynote the "Broadband for the Future Event" in Washington, DC. The event is designed to advocate for white spaces, something Google has been adamant about for a long time.

If you're unaware, white spaces are a unused airwaves between TV stations. Google wants them to be used for free nationwide wireless. Opponents say that it will interfere with the television signals.

Here's the details on the event if you wish to attend.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 11:30 am - 1:00 pm ET Room SD-G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 8:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 15, 2008

Congressional Judiciary Committees Look into Yahoo-Google Ad Partnership

Last week the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing on online advertising and privacy. Today, the Judiciary Committees of the Senate and House get in on the action as it relates to the recent Yahoo-Google deal.

The Senate hearing began at 10:30 am, but is largely eclipsed by a speech by the President as well as Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's umteenth appearance on Capitol Hill. You can watch it live by clicking on "Live Webcast" here.

The House hearing begins at 1:30pm and the site has links to webcast video, though I personally couldn't get them to work on my laptop. If you're in the DC area, head on over to 2141 Rayburn House Office Building to observe the hearing for yourself.

Google Senior VP for Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer David Drummond will be appearing at both hearings and is planning to touch on the following:

The agreement will be good for Internet users (who will see ads that are better targeted to their interests); advertisers (whose ads will be better matched to users' interests, allowing them to reach potential customers more efficiently), and website publishers (who will see increased revenue from better-matched ads on their websites).
Google and Yahoo! will remain vigorous competitors, and that competition will help fuel innovation that is good for users and the economy. Commercial arrangements between competitors are commonplace in many industries. Antitrust regulators in the US have recognized that consumers can benefit form these arrangements, especially when one company has technical expertise that enables another company to improve the quality of its products
The agreement will not increase Google's share of search traffic, because Yahoo will continue to run its own search engine and compete in online search.
Yahoo! will make its instant messaging network interoperable with Google's. This will mean easier and broader communication among a growing number of IM users, and enable users to choose among competing IM providers based on the merits and features of the services.
A number of steps have been taken in the Yahoo! agreement to protect user privacy. As Google supplies ads to Yahoo! and its partners, personally identifiable information of individual Internet users will not be shared between the companies. Yahoo! will anonymize the IP address of a searcher's computer before passing a search request to Google.

Also scheduled to appear are:

Michael Callahan, General Counsel, Yahoo!
Brad Smith Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Microsoft
Matthew Crowley, Chief Marketing Officer, Yellowpages.com
Tim Carter, President and CEO, Askthebuilder.com

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 10:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

July 7, 2008

Google Adds Privacy Link in Wake of Viacom Ruling; YouTube Addresses Privacy Issues

Recently, Google has been resisting calls to add a privacy link to their home page, saying searchers can simply type "Google privacy policy" in the search box to find the info. Plus, they didn't want to mess up that beautiful front page - well, except for links to advertising and business solutions that will bring them money.

But the search giant has finally caved and added the 7 letter word to its page with a link to the policy. And as John Paczkowski points out at AllThingsD, the link just happened to go up just after a judge ruled that Google has to hand over YouTube user logs in a suit brought against it by Viacom.

Meanwhile, YouTube addressed the ruling on its blog. While they're planning on complying with the ruling, they are working with Viacom lawyers to remove at least some of the information they'll be handing over: Of course, we have to follow legal process. But since IP addresses and usernames aren't necessary to determine general viewing practices, our lawyers have asked their lawyers to let us remove that information before we hand over the data they're seeking. (You should know, IP addresses identify a computer, not the person using it. It's not possible to determine your identity solely based on your IP address. Rather, an IP address can reveal what geographic area you're connecting from, or which Internet service provider you're using.)

What do you think of Google's move to put the privacy link on the homepage? How about YouTube's decision to comply with the law? Fire off in the comments!

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 11:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

May 23, 2008

Google's Page Says Microsoft Does 'Bad Stuff'

Google co-founder Larry Page was in the nation's capital making the case for white spaces when the conversation inevitably turned to Microsoft-Yahoo. According to several news outlets, Page said, "Now, if you put 90% of communications all in one company ... that's really a big risk, especially one (Microsoft) that has a history of doing bad stuff. So if you want to have good products you need to have some degree of openness."

There are obvious problems with Page's statement. One is, why is Page acting threatened? Google more than dominates search engine queries and advertising.

Another is, if a Microsoft-Yahoo merger would produced closed products, and if good products require openness, then what in the world is Page worried about?

Besides rethinking his logic, Page may also want to do some number crunching. USA Today pointed out that comScore predicts that a Microsoft-Yahoo deal would combine to have 70% of email and instant messaging market share in the U.S.

During the same speech, Page said that a Google-Yahoo ad deal would pass the antitrust test. Together, Google and Yahoo dominate 80% of the search ad market.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 10:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

May 21, 2008

Not Even a Little Evil

A top story from Ars Technica was making the rounds through Digg and Reddit yesterday, bashing Google for being a "little evil." The charge is based on an unusual case, where Google helped Indian police nab Rahul Krishnakumar Vaid, an IT professional living near New Delhi, for posting disparaging messages about Sonia Gandhi on an Orkut group. Vaid was charged under section 292 of Indian Penal Code and section 67 of the Information Technology Act, for posting disparaging, "vulgar" content about Gandhi in a group entitled "I Hate Sonia Gandhi." The creator of the group, interestingly, was not charged.

While the law may be outrageous in its limitation of free speech (my opinion), Google's response to it was far from. And it certainly wasn't evil. If Google wants to operate in India, their local branch must follow local laws. And while everyone seems to claim that Google's actions in this case, and in the infamous case of Chinese censorship, violated their motto of "Don't Be Evil," it seems that very few people actually read Google's explanation of their de facto motto. According to Google's Code of Conduct, "'Don't be evil' is...about doing the right thing more generally – following the law." Google can choose not to operate in certain marketplaces where the feel that following the local laws would clash with the other principles of "Don't Be Evil," like "acting honorably and treating each other with respect," but the search giant cannot just decide to break the law.

In any marketplace, Google needs to weigh the ethical benefit of its service, which offers free information to people, against the ethical limitations of the marketplace, such as censorship. Google decided that it was more evil in China to deprive the population of any search results than to censor some results. Now it's made the same decision in India--and rightly so.

Every time Google is required to comply with local laws, it is accused of being evil; every time Google stores or analyzes a new piece of information--like mail or health records--it is accused of being invasive and violating users' privacy. These cycles are predictable and they predictably pass (do you know anyone who doesn't use Gmail because they are worried about Google reading their email?).

"Don't Be Evil" is (sadly) a lot for any international company to live up to. Google actually pulls it off quite well.

Posted by at 12:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (10)

May 7, 2008

Google to Internet, FCC, Verizon and Viacom: Keep it Open

Google has been busy on the legal, tech and policy front lately, and there's a primary theme running through all of their pursuits: Google loves wide open spaces.

First up, as is being widely reported, Clearwire and Spring are combining their wifi and broadband services. But did you know Google is one of the companies behind the $3.2 billion deal? They've teamed with Comcast, Intel Capital, Time Warner Cable, Bright House Networks and Trilogy Equity Partners to create the new company.

Sprint's 2.5 GHz spectrum is part of the deal. And spectrum is something at the top of Google's wish list lately. Google didn't win any of its bids on a recent FCC spectrum auction. And last week, Google raised concern that Verizon will not keep its spectrum auction space open afterall.

Google is also facing resistance to its plan for "white spaces." Several sports groups including the NFL, NBA and NASCAR are now lobbying the FCC to not open up "white spaces" on TV spectrum. Google wants them opened up for wireless. The groups are concerned about signal interference for things like coaching headsets and referee microphones.

In a different kind of open battle, Google is saying that it won't settle a lawsuit brought by Viacom over copyrighted material, according to Business Week. David Eun, vice president in Content Partnerships at Google told Dow Jones newswires that they plan to go all the way to the Supreme Court with the case. Viacom brought the $1 billion suit after the two companies couldn't reach a licensing agreement for content on YouTube.

Whether it's content or spectrum, Google wants to keep things out in the open. They're going to great lengths to make it happen, and while corporations may not be thrilled, consumers are likely to be happy should Google meet its open goals.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 10:00 AM | Permalink

April 8, 2008

Google Responds to FTC's Self-Regulatory Principles

When concerns over data collection and behavioral advertising arise, it seems that the glass half empty people are the loudest. But in a recent response to the FTC's Self-Regulatory Principles, Google has pointed out the impact that online advertising has had on the economy.

Google highlighted that in 2007, they paid out $4.5 billion to publishers utilizing the Adsense network. These monies either supplements or provides full-time income to many site owners including bloggers. They pointed out that many people have opportunities that just weren't available 10 years ago.

Additionally, the revenue that Google generates enables them to provide services for free to the general public.

Google wrote that these innovations only occur within a self-regulatory framework:

"To be effective and credible, however, self-regulation must have as its foundation agreed-upon fair information practices and must be informed by ongoing dialog with and input from consumer advocates, the Commission, and other stakeholders. The FTC staff's draft self-regulatory principles for online behavioral advertising provides an excellent foundation for developing the most effective consumer protection, while maintaining an online environment in which innovation and competition can thrive."

But Google is careful to distinguish its advertising from being labeled "behavioral advertising."

"As currently drafted, the proposed principles would apply to contextual advertising, which we define as advertising that is provided in response to the current activities of a user. For example, our AdWords program allows us to provide ads on Google.com in response to search queries entered by our users. In addition, our AdSense product allows us to provide ads to visitors to the web sites of third-party publisher partners based on the content of pages visited. In essence, then, our contextual advertising allows for the delivery of advertisements based on search queries or our analysis of the content of a web page being viewed. We believe that this type of advertising should not be considered behavioral advertising, even if such analysis takes into consideration previous search queries."

These comments also come in the wake of news from Europe of a policy adopted by the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, which would reduce data collection by search engines to just 6 months. Such a regulation could greatly impact the ability of search engines to provide relevant ads, which could have a ripple effect on the greater revenue streams generated by their ad networks.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 11:22 AM | Permalink

October 22, 2007

SEW Experts: Inside Google Zeitgeist: Google's Annual Partner Summit

If you're just now starting to think about how search and your organization (or internal search department) impact the 2008 planning process, you're a little late to the game. In today's Search Ads column, "Inside Google Zeitgeist: Google's Annual Partner Summit," Matt Spiegel shares details from Google's very exclusive annual partner summit. Rather than focusing on search and ads, the event was a two-day feast of brain food on topics ranging from world hunger and environmental protection to the shortage of digital marketing talent.

Several video clips of the event are available on the Google Channel on YouTube.

Posted by Kevin Newcomb at 12:00 AM | Permalink

August 17, 2007

Google Explains its Wireless Dreams

Google posted to its Public Policy Blog last night to share its ambitions around the upcoming "white space" auction the FCC will hold to sell off unused TV spectrum. Google hopes to make it possible for those unused bits of radio spectrum between licensed TV channels to be freed up for development as wireless Internet access as a sort of broadband WiFi once the move to digital TV signals takes place in February 2009.

Google and others, including Dell, EarthLink, HP, Intel, Microsoft, and Philips, have formed the "White Spaces Coalition," to lobby the FCC and show that it would be technically feasible to provide Internet access through this segment of spectrum without interfering with either digital television signals or wireless microphones.

Posted by Kevin Newcomb at 11:55 AM | Permalink

See More Posts From:

This Week | This Month

Legal Notices, Licensing, Reprints & Permissions

Privacy Policy
Affiliates

var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www."); document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E")); var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-564586-7"); pageTracker._setDomainName(".searchenginewatch.com"); pageTracker._trackPageview(); window.collarity_appid = "incmedia"; //> //>

Top Jobs

more Jobs

Account Manager
Varick Media Management New York, United States

Reporting and Data Analyst
Varick Media Management New York, United States

Director of Marketing Communications
Avery Dennison Brea, United States

Publisher
Confidential Leading Publisher New York, United States

White Papers

more Research