Results tagged “Google”

September 26, 2017 10:15 AM

Section 230: Google's Shield and Its Sword

The irony of Google's riskless "net neutrality" campaign to impose competitive restrictions on other companies, we've noted here and here, is its claims that rules are necessary to prevent ISPs from engaging in the types of monopoly abuse that only it and a few other privileged platforms can profitably employ.  Google's current fight--against lawmakers' efforts to impose responsibility on websites that actively facilitate, promote, and profit from sex trafficking--contains a similar element of hypocrisy.  The principle that Google is fighting against--that websites should bear responsibility for the activities they promote/knowingly tolerate from 3rd parties--is a principle that Google itself has used to exclude competitors from its monopoly Android platform


Section 230 and SESTA

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("Sect. 230") was passed to limit the potentially devastating effect on the Internet development resulting from potential liability of  Internet service providers held responsible for defamatory statements made by their users.  Sect. 230 states that no provider/user of an "interactive computer service" (i.e., a website that provides access to third party content) shall be "treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by [a third party]." 47 U.S.C. Sect. 230.  The scope of Sect. 230, as applied by the courts, is so vast as to be virtually unlimited; shielding websites, no matter how complicit they were in the content they distributed, from virtually any tort or state criminal law liability. See, e.g., criticisms here, here, and here.

The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017 ("SESTA"), introduced by Sens. Rob Portman (R-OH) and Claire McCaskill this past summer, has nearly 30 bipartisan co-sponsors. Earlier this year, the two released a Staff Report of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations describing the extent to which the website Backpage.com was actively involved in, and profiting from, the sexual exploitation of children throughout the world--all without any fear of legal consequences.  The proposed legislation would chip away--ever so slightly--at the broad immunity conferred on "information service providers" for the content of third party speakers under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.       

The prospect of losing any of its immunity has led Google to mobilize its academics and third parties to fight tooth-and-nail in its defense of Backpage.comYet, though it understands the importance of a website being able to distance itself from the speech of its users, Google recently removed another app, Gab.ai, ("Gab") from its Play Store because, Google claimed, the site did not display the ability to sufficiently control the speech of its users. 

Tolerance for Intolerance

Upstart social media site Gab.ai ("Gab") was founded in 2016 by a vocal Trump supporter and a Turkish Muslim who ardently opposed Trump's candidacy.  See, Complaint of Gab Ai Inc., v. Google, LLC, E.D. Pa. (filed Sept 14, 2017) ("Complaint") at paras. 7-17.  Concerned that Twitter seemed to be excluding speakers based on socially unpopular points of view, the two friends sought to create a more libertarian social media network.   

Gab's platform was made available to beta users on a private invitation basis in the second half of 2016, and was publicly released in May 2017.  Complaint para 10.  Gab "does not sell access to or otherwise 'monetize' its users' personal information."  Complaint 48.  Rather than selling advertising, Gab plans to support the service through paid "GabPro" premium memberships.

Gab is modeled off of Twitter, though it allows its users 300 characters, but Gab also includes some functions from Reddit, and unique features that "'provide people with the tools they need to create and shape their own experience.'" Complaint paras 19-29.  Thus, although Gab has developed a reputation as being more welcoming of "far right" and "conspiracy theory" types, its users can choose to exclude content that they do not wish to see.

Gab maintains community guidelines which prohibit "illegal pornography and terrorism; the posting of confidential information of others; communications calling for acts of violence; promotion of acts of self-harm or cruelty; the use of threatening language; and any other behavior that clearly infringes on the safety of another user or individual." Complaint at 31 (emphasis added).  Moreover, users must abide by its terms of service and privacy policy.  Gab's policies meet all formal requirements for distribution through the two leading app stores.

Gab's app was approved for distribution to Android users through Google's Play Store since its public launch in May. Gab quickly surpassed its founders' expectations and now has 268,000 users, including 3,000 paid accounts, and reached the $1.07 million SEC limit on "crowdfunded" offerings in only 38 days. Complaint 10, 53,and 55.

Intolerance for Tolerance

In the week following the recent Charlottesville tragedy, on August 17th, Google notified Gab that it had "'suspended and removed [Gab's app] from Google Play as a policy strike because it violates the hate speech policy.'" Complaint 138.  Gab contends that Google's purported justification was a cynical attempt to avoid press scrutiny at a time of national concern over extremist groups; and a mere pretext to eliminate a competitor with a business plan (no advertising, no sharing of user's personal information) that could only threaten, and never benefit, Google's advertising business.

Instead, Gab notes that Google well knew that Gab's app does not advocate "hate" (or any other) speech, but consists entirely of user-generated content ("UCG").  To the contrary Gab explains that it has always been compliant with Google's only formal policy for UCG-oriented apps: that such apps must "take additional precautions in order to provide a policy compliant app experience, requiring apps to define and prohibit objectionable content via terms of service, implement a system to report content, and block users." Complaint para 144.

Later, Google offered further justification (not provided to Gab) for its decision in an email to Ars Technica:

In order to be on the Play Store, social networking apps need to demonstrate a sufficient level of moderation, including for content that encourages violence and advocates hate against groups of people. This is a long-standing rule and clearly stated in our developer policies.

Complaint 140.  Gab notes, however, that this "moderation" requirement cannot be found anywhere in Google's developer policies. Gab also notes that Google would not, and does not, place any such requirement on other "social news" apps like Google+, YouTube, or its commercial partner, Twitter.  The only purpose of Google's arguing for such a requirement, Gab argues, is to raise the costs of entry, and to subject competitors to the risk of losing their Section 230 immunity.  

Policies Are Made for Exclusion Exceptions

Gab's contention that Google's policies are being unevenly applied is beyond dispute.  The most cursory search (via Bing) reveals that not only do other social news sites (e.g., Google's partner Twitter) not filter hate speech or pornography, but they actually sell access to the "hate speakers" to their advertisers.


Gab alleges that Google's "policies" exist only to be strategically applied to apps that compete with/offer little value to Google's other monopoly services.  Twitter's value to Google is obvious by virtue of the parties' relationship predicated on advertising-search "cooperation" (non-competition).  Gab, on the other hand, seems valuable only for features Google/Twitter want to copy--like the higher character limit (280) Twitter announced yesterday. Google--by virtue of its access to Twitter's "Firehose" of user data--knows that its partner either fails to moderate, or actively exploits, the hate speech of its own users. If this were really a concern for Google, Twitter would have been out of the Play Store long ago.

The most interesting thing is not that Google opportunistically applies its "social concerns" to exclude rivals.  Google is nothing if not brazen.  After all, this is the company that has its chief lobbyist blog about how much it cares about sex trafficking victims (in fairness, Google was recognized for a $3 million donation in 2013 to help NGO's better share information), while spending twice that much this summer fighting SESTA. 

Google Lobbying 2Q 17 v2.jpg


What is surprising, though (even for Google), is that Google would use the exact same justification to exclude a competitive app--moderation of speech--that it is telling Congress would ruin the Internet if it were applied to known bad actors.  The thing that hurt Gab the most may not have been so much the speech of its users, but the fact that that speech is unlikely to generate any profit for Google. After all, the Play Store is a business and curates its content accordingly.

google play v2.png

August 2, 2017 9:44 AM

Deconstructing the Internet Giant Myths On Net Neutrality

In the last post, we noted that the Internet giants' arguments, advocating for regulation of ISPs, best describe the only market power they know--their own.  According to the Internet giants, ISPs must be regulated even though the "harms" they identify are all things that Internet giants do with their market power.

On a daily basis, we now witness numerous examples of the Internet platform giants doing the exact thing that they consistently point to as "destroying the Internet" if performed by an ISP, e.g., blocking/throttling/discriminating against content.  When Twitter was recently admonished by members of Congress for openly blocking a link to AT&T's public policy website, it was hardly a "man bites dog" story.  

Previously, we looked at the "fast lane/slow lane" argument--and made clear that this has not, nor has ever been, a practice of ISPs, but is not only the underlying business model for Google and Facebook, it is also what allowed Google to dominate the search engine market. 
In this post, we're going to look at another common "hysterical doom" prophecy advanced by the tech giants' advocacy groups.  

"The Internet Will Become Like Cable TV & Squeeze Out New Content"

In this classic argument from the net neutrality crowd, they paint a scary future world where consumers pay for Internet access the same way that they select cable channel packages today.  They claim that, not only will consumers have to pay for existing free sites, but content from new entrants will not be easy to see unless the entrant also pays for placement.  Here's a common visual aid:
net neutrality cable2.jpg
 This alleged nightmare scenario requires the usual implicit convictions that: 1) ISPs are monopolies, and 2) "[t]hey're destined to screw up the internet."  This specific scenario, however, hinges on a contradictory, yet fundamental, belief unique to Silicon Valley: no one should pay for content, yet we can sell other people's content to advertisers at significant margins.

Other People's Content

The New York Times recently published an in-depth look at Yelp's 6 year fight against Google's search discrimination activities.  In addition to its claim that Google search put Yelp's competing local review service in the "slow lane" (often pushing Yelp off the customer's screen entirely), Yelp maintains that Google "scraped" (stole) its content to post at the top of the search results.   

Google's action against Yelp provides a sense of its dominant power in the market. Yelp, itself, is a huge Internet platform, the 33rd most visited web site in the U.S. and one of the top 200 in the world.  This demonstration of Google's Internet superiority, however, is not limited to large competitors  A recent article on Outline revealed the experience of CelebrityNetWorth.com, and how Google's practice of taking other people's content has far reaching consequences for smaller content creators. 

As the Outline article explains, CelebrityNetWorth.com was an advertiser on Google and paid the firm to be placed highly in response to search queries.  Despite this--and even denying Google permission to use its content in Google's Snippets program--Google, in 2016, started scraping the company's content to post above the search results.  Immediately, traffic to CelebrityNetWorth crashed by 65% and the site's owner had to fire half of his staff of 12. Google, though, isn't alone in the way that it parasitically preys on its own content suppliers.
 
Facebook, likewise, has profited handsomely from the content of others.  In 2015, the company launched its "Instant Articles" program, which was designed to keep readers on Facebook's site for longer.  According to the New York Times, many large publishers, by then dependent on Facebook for referrals to their sites, "agreed to the deal, despite concerns that their participation could eventually undermine their own businesses."

These concerns were not misplaced.  A year later, traffic to the news sites from Facebook had seen double digit declines of as much as 50%.  Recently, Inc. noted that Google and Facebook now have more ad revenue than every newspaper, magazine, and radio station combined.  In response to the rapid growth by these two Silicon Valley behemoths, news content creators recently banded together to seek an antitrust exemption in a last-ditch effort to fight the platform companies' predation with market power of their own. 

Could ISPs Make the Internet Like Cable TV?

It's worth noting that proponents of this dystopia never explain, step-by-step, how the ISP would be able to offer/sell such a service, much less--given the likely market responses--how this service could ever be profitable.  To better understand the likely consumer response, here is a quick review of virtual private network ("VPN") services.

A VPN service allows users to route their traffic, via a private, secure "tunnel" to a 3rd party server. The ISP does not know, nor can it control, the destination of a user's traffic after it is sent to a VPN.  Likewise, the user's destination point can only "see" the IP address of the VPN's server--which makes VPNs very popular among certain Internet users, such as those of Netflix
 
Although the best VPN services are used to protect user privacy, they are not usually free.   But, if you care more about avoiding the "net neutrality nightmares," than you do for your own privacy, Google's got your solution--because of course they always do.

In addition to the world's dominant search engine, the world's dominant mobile operating system, and the world's dominant online translation service, Google also has a dominant position in the web browser market--with its Chrome browser having a desktop share more than 4x higher than its closest competitor (Mozilla).   
chrome_browser4.png 

If you need verification of Google's dominance, go ahead and ask one of your kids what web browser their school computer must use.And, it just so happens that Google offers, as a Chrome browser extension, a "free" VPN service to Chrome users.    

What does that mean?  Well, any attempt by an ISP to adopt the "Internet access as cable TV strategy" would only succeed in making its Internet access even less profitable than its real cable TV service.  Keep in mind that while a D.C. Circuit decision makes clear an ISPs ability to offer a "curated" service under Title II regulation, no ISP has yet to offer such a service. 

*    *    *

While the Internet giants continue to actively promote an outdated myth, they know the truth;  consumers' should actually fear should the tech giants given that they have already turned the Internet into something a lot more like cable than cable.  While, the average cable customer watches just 17 channels; of the top 50 U.S. websites, almost none offer content and an advertising platform not already owned by an existing Silicon Valley Internet platform giant.  

These Internet platform owners are also some of the very richest people on the planet (#2 (but #1 last week) Jeff Bezos of Amazon, #5 Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, and #'s 11/12 Larry Page and Sergey Brin of Google).  In terms of financial clout (market capitalization), the 4 largest tech giants are more than 3x larger than the 4 largest ISPs.

ISPs v Tech Giants Mkt Cap.jpg 
This dominant economic power over Internet media has spillover effects in traditional media.  Last week, the media bias watchdog group FAIR reported that its "review of 190 articles from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and the Bezos-owned Washington Post over the past year paints a picture of almost uniformly uncritical-ofttimes boosterish-coverage." The same article notes that none of the largest papers has written any critical, investigative pieces on Amazon/Bezos in almost 2 years.

Thankfully, though this general lack of scrutiny--by journalists employed by papers dependent on the biggest platforms--is not complete, even at the organizations criticized by FAIR.  Just this past weekend, the Post ran an excellent piece, asking if Amazon was not becoming "too big?"  Likewise, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal--a publication not known for its skepticism toward big business--recently asked if it was not too late to control Google, Facebook, and Amazon?     

The evolution of the Internet and the ubiquity of VPN service have rendered the "Internet will be like cable" nightmare as about as scary as "the call is coming from inside the house" line sounds to anyone who came of age after 2000.  No, the scary story is not the one the Internet platform giants are shoving down your throat; it's the one they are hiding from the Internet consuming public.    

July 21, 2017 8:14 AM

Net Narcissism: Internet Giants Reflect Danger for an Open Internet

The Internet giants, and their lobbying groups, organized a "Day of Action" last week.  Internet users were urged to feel outrage, because, the tech giants threatened, unless the FCC steps in to micromanage your Internet service (which the FCC gave itself  authority to do 2 years ago), then the websites you love will be blocked/throttled/discriminated against unless you pay your Internet Service Provider ("ISP") more money.  

Of course, if your ISP wanted more money from you, it would be easier to just raise your rates; but they can't, because if they did, they know you would cancel your service.  The fact is that none of these dystopian threats make any sense, from the standpoint of your ISP; which is why net neutrality advocates offer threats instead of actual examples of harm.

So where do these scary, remote--yet strangely-not-impossible-sounding--stories come from?  To better understand, let's consider Oscar Wilde's uniquely wry twist on another, much older, myth.

Wilde's Narcissus

Most of us are familiar with the story of Narcissus, the beautiful youth so taken with his own beauty that he fell in love with the image of his reflection in a clear pool and stared at it until he died. Oscar Wilde's version comes from his poem, "The Disciple." 

When Narcissus died the pool of his pleasure changed from a cup of sweet waters into a cup of salt tears, and the Oreads came weeping through the woodland that they might sing to the pool and give it comfort.

And when they saw that the pool had changed from a cup of sweet waters into a cup of salt tears, they loosened the green tresses of their hair and cried to the pool and said, 'We do not wonder that you should mourn in this manner for Narcissus, so beautiful was he.'

'But was Narcissus beautiful?' said the pool.

'Who should know that better than you?' answered the Oreads. 'Us did he ever pass by, but you he sought for, and would lie on your banks and look down at you, and in the mirror of your waters he would mirror his own beauty.'

And the pool answered, 'But I loved Narcissus because, as he lay on my banks and looked down at me, in the mirror of his eyes I saw ever my own beauty mirrored.'
Tell Us About Yourself

Like both the pool and Narcissus, when the tech giants gaze into the Internet access market, they don't see the competition that is giving consumers ever higher speeds of bandwidth per dollar spent.  Instead, the tech giants see only their reflection, which is downright scary.  Thus, the dystopic "without net neutrality" scenarios offered by the tech giants' special interest groups don't sound totally crazy because every one of them is based on something that at least one of their sponsors has already done. Let's look at a classic.

The Classic "Fast Lane/Slow Lane" Nightmare

This one has been around since the FCC's first net neutrality rulemaking and is one of the tech activist/lobbyist favorites and was prominently promoted by last week's "Day of Action."  The story goes that without [net neutrality rules and/or Title II classification], the ISPs will favor their own (or affiliated) content, and everyone else (i.e., all the websites you like) will be confined to the "slow lane."

Fast Lane_Slow Lane2.jpg

Where Does It Come From?

Every single Internet platform giant prioritizes "its" content--meaning that of its advertisers. Google, of course, is the best known of these.  Last month, the EU antitrust authority hit the company with a $2.7 billion fine last month for using its dominant search platform (over 90% market share in Europe) to discriminate in favor of its own Google Shopping, and disadvantage those of unaffiliated, rival sellers.

Google's practice of "promoting" its customers over others essentially leaves businesses--web-based or not--with the false choice of paying to be a customer, or taking themselves off the Internet.  This false choice is made more evident in the context of the large and growing mobile Internet.  The New York Times, in a recent article describing Yelp's struggle to compete with Google, notes the observation of an analyst (who recommends buying Google stock, but not Yelp's),

[a]s the internet has migrated to mobile phones, Google has compensated for the smaller screen space by filling it with so many ads that users can have a hard time finding a result that hasn't been paid for.
Facebook, too, does the same thing--though it uses the word "advertiser" quite liberally.  In a recent Wall Street Journal essay, describing a number of market power abuses by the tech giants, Jonathan Taplin notes the controversy involving media buyers and Facebook over its ad billing.  Facebook advertisers are paying a handsome price to be in the fast lane because, as Taplin notes, "the 'viewability scores' for Facebook video ads are as low as 2% when compared with the standard used for TV ads." 

Do ISPs Favor Content? 

No.  As an initial matter, it's worth noting that the majority of web "content" is delivered over private networks and not the public Internet. However, even in situations where the ISP's broadband customers were using their Internet access to avoid purchasing high-margin pay-per-view video services from their cable ISPs (like adult video and WWE events), the ISPs did nothing to interfere with their Internet subscribers' choice of content. Of course, the web incumbents know this very well, as they invested in and built their businesses well before the FCC had any formal net neutrality rules.

*    *    *

Thomas Hazlett noted, 11 years ago, the paradox between the new public policy Google had started floating in 2005, and the actions that Google was taking in the market as it acquired YouTube, "[t]he internet really is not open - if, as Google hopes, it is doing it right."  Hazlett also wonders if Google's public policy might not have a lot to do with the fact that--at a time when it was only the 3rd ranked search engine on the Internet--Google itself benefited from an exclusive distribution agreement with an ISP (AOL).  

Perhaps the "close-the-door-behind-itself" aspect of Google's net neutrality policy is as good an explanation as any for the observation, in a recent Vox article that, "we haven't had a major new technology company in 10 years." Rules that prevent ISP's from offering innovative services to all customers--edge providers and retail end-users--don't just prevent the Internet from responding to consumer demand, they also ensure that the access network will continue to simply reflect and reinforce the images projected upon it by the tech giants.
June 19, 2017 12:48 PM

Rep. Marsha Blackburn Exposes Hypocrisy on Broadband Privacy

marsha blackburn.jpg
                                                     photo credit: Gage Skidmore Marsha Blackburn via photopin (license)

As noted previously, the FCC's "broadband privacy" rulemaking was really a shadow war, fought by third party advocacy groups funded by the Internet giants, like Google, Facebook, and others.  The recent legislative battle to repeal the FCC Privacy rules was no different.  Yet, within the past month, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) "introduced the Balancing the Rights of Web Surfers Equally and Responsibly ("BROWSER") Act of 2017 to protect the online privacy of Americans."  In doing so, Blackburn has revealed what these previous "privacy" battles have been about: protecting the Internet giants' commercial advantage in the online advertising market. 

"Broadband Privacy" Is Not Online Privacy

Remember the flood of news stories fueled by interest-group-manufactured outrage about how Congress didn't care about your privacy online?   The ostensible basis for this outrage was that Congress used its authority under the 1996 Congressional Review Act to eliminate the Wheeler FCC's efforts to further advantage the biggest online advertisers (i.e., Google and Facebook) under the guise of "protecting" the privacy of ISP customers.  

Commonly omitted from those stories--and the legislative debate as well--was the fact that the FCC's "privacy" rules did not apply to consumers' information online, but only regulated the ISPs' use of this information (on a non-user-specific basis) to compete with Google/Facebook for online advertising revenue. Yet, at the first mention of using the CRA to repeal the FCC's ISP-specific rules, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) stated, "[c]onsumers should not have to worry about their financial, medical and other personal information begin shared without their permission." 

Likewise, after the Senate voted to repeal the Wheeler Commission's privacy rules (on March 23), Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA) issued this statement:

The American public wants us to strengthen privacy protections, not weaken them. We should not have to forgo our fundamental right to privacy just because our homes and phones are connected to the internet.

Reading these statements, one might reasonably assume that Congressman Pallone and Senator Markey care, generally, about protecting your personal information--regardless of who is collecting and selling that information.

However, after the CRA was adopted by the House, and the FCC's ISP-specific rules were repealed, Sen. Markey pivoted away from consumers, and their general online privacy, and toward his most important constituents--the Internet giants.  Rather than work toward legislation that would create online privacy rights for consumers, Markey instead declares his intention "to introduce legislation that directs the FCC to reinstate strong broadband privacy rules." (Emphasis added)  On April 6th, Sen. Markey did exactly what he promised, and introduced legislation that would merely direct the FCC to impose its prior regulations on ISPs. 

Markey_bband privacy4.jpg

The PR Campaign: Chicken-Little Meets Michael Corleone

As FCC Chairman Pai noted, the FCC's 2015 rules were driven by "hypothetical harms and hysterical prophecies of doom."  This was fueled by the Internet giants that fought the CRA legislation by using their surrogate groups to successfully plant similarly-exaggerated, chicken-little stories through friendly media outlets, such as Motherboard and DSL Reports.   

The media frenzy they created essentially promoted hysterical speculation without regard for facts.  My personal favorite is "Internet Activists Plot 2018 Electoral Revenge Against Republican Sellouts," from Motherboard.  The article, cites the "usual" sources (the tech giants' third party advocacy groups), and prominently features a picture of House Communications & Technology Subcommittee Chair Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) as the putative target for this "electoral revenge" (which subsequently occurred when Silicon Valley-funded Fight for the Future put up a misleading billboard in Rep. Blackburn's district).

Like the Silicon Valley advocacy groups he loves to cite, Motherboard tech policy contributor, Sam Gustin really doesn't like Rep. Blackburn.  Whether through a subconscious desire to appeal to the sexist bias of its Silicon Valley idols, or purely unintentional, Motherboard's privacy articles provide a good illustration of what the NY Times calls "sexist political criticism" that uniquely plagues strong female politicians, through its practice of always introducing Blackburn by immediately putting her character/competency in question.

For example, in this article the Senate sponsor of the CRA repeal of the FCC broadband privacy rules, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) is introduced simply as "the Arizona Republican."  Rep. Blackburn, however, is introduced as "the Tennessee Republican who has received colossal sums of campaign cash from the telecom industry."  The reader is left to imply that Rep. Blackburn--as opposed to Sen. Flake--is either corrupt, or only interested in furthering her personal ambition; though she and Sen. Flake are described as doing the exact same thing.

Haters Gonna Hate

When Rep. Marsha Blackburn introduced the BROWSER Act (that would re-apply the FCC's rules to ISPs as well as the Internet giants), one would have expected the self-proclaimed "consumer online privacy" groups to immediately declare victory.  None of the Internet giants' big 3rd party advocacy groups (EFF, Free Press, New America's OTI) has even commented on privacy since Blackburn introduced her bill--except for this press release by Google-supported Public Knowledge, to "clarify" that it "did not support" Blackburn's bill, as a Boston Globe article had reported.  If you hadn't noticed so far, this issue was never really about consumers.  

Rather, as the Washington Post's Brian Fung explains, the issue was always about politics and money.  Ironically, to improve consumers' privacy rights online would be for Democrats to cede the privacy issue for the election.  Worse still, it would put Democrats on the wrong side of their core "Silicon Valley" constituency; the tech giants. Thus, Rep. Frank Pallone seems to have moved past his concerns about consumers' personal information, given that Rep. Blackburn has exactly 0 Democratic co-sponsors of her Browser Act.

Consequently, the tech giants' media outlets--so aggressively pro-privacy when it was just an ISP/Republican issue--have been largely silent on Blackburn's bill.  Motherboard's Gustin has written nothing on privacy since his "plotting revenge" article.  DSL Reports' Karl Bode--with his characteristic tin-foil hat logic (see, e.g., "AT&T Fools Entire Media With Giant Gigabit Fiber Bluff" arguing that AT&T's ultra-fast "Gigapower" Internet service is a PR hoax)--faults Blackburn for introducing a bill that "she knows won't pass."   Advocate journalist Bode quickly concludes that Blackburn, of course, knows that her bill won't pass because--back to Gustin's only biographical point--she's in the pocket of ISPs, and they won't like the bill, because they...and her...are just, you know, evil.

What Is Privacy Worth?

Google, and Facebook, et al., were mad enough, when Congress eliminated the regulatory barriers to entry that the Wheeler FCC had imposed on ISPs, but to give consumers any  control over the heretofore unfettered ability of the online ad giants to use and monetize personal consumer data was more than they could handle. So, the web giants now argue, according to the Business Insider, that if consumers are in control of their privacy, "Facebook won't be free."  

This statement calls to mind the laughably-superficial reasoning, by Public Knowledge President Gene Kimmelman, as to why the proposed AT&T/Time Warner combination should be regarded with greater suspicion than other firms also competing for consumers' leisure attention, like the Internet platform giants.  Kimmelman dismisses the Internet giants as "competitors" to traditional content, because "none of them charges me $200/month to access their online content." (See, 12/07/16 Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing  at 2:21:50-2:23:30)

Sen. Jeff Flake perceptively identifies the flaw in this logic, asking witness Mark Cuban if it matters who is actually "paying" when considering whether firms compete in the same market for consumers' attention.  Cuban succinctly observes that, "if you're not paying for content, you are the content." Hearing video at 2:23:44 (emphasis added).  Cuban's point is that online consumers are giving the platform giants something these companies can readily exchange for cash--their personal information. 

The Internet giants' argument (and that of their surrogate groups) rests on the notion that consumers' personal information is of little value, and therefore the content that the consumer receives from the platform giants is a great deal.  Yet, if the Internet giants' services are indeed valued more by consumers than the consumers value their own privacy, then what's the harm in letting consumers decide how they wish to pay--in terms of  cash or personal data--for these services?  

The beauty of Blackburn's bill is that it gives consumers the right to make that decision, and for this she deserves more credit than she's gotten.  Let's hope that at least some Democrats agree this is a choice that should be returned to consumers.


November 18, 2016 3:37 PM

Wheeler's FCC: Decisionmaking by Political Favoritism

An independent, "expert agency," like the FCC, is at its most effective when it is focused on keeping the industries it regulates running smoothly, in the interests of consumers, by filling policy "potholes."  On the other hand, nothing incites partisan rancor like addressing "problems" that look a lot more like ideological crusades, rather than good faith efforts to address genuine consumer grievances.  

Under Chairman Tom Wheeler, the FCC became a battlefield for "proxy wars" pitting business interests against each other in the name of ideology--that, itself, was a disguise for transparent political favoritism.  These battles were fought not by the traditional strength of evidence and argument, but instead through PR campaigns, produced social media outrage, and 3rd party Hessians claiming the "public" or "progressive" interest mantle. This approach has devalued the deliberative process and the role of  the majority and minority commissioners in driving consensus at the expert agency.

A Regulatory "Pothole"

A good example of a regulatory "pothole" is the agency's response to rapid adoption of VoIP technology by consumers in the early 2000's.  Though VoIP calls were a cheaper substitute for PSTN calls in most respects, because VoIP calls didn't use the PSTN, consumers could not access E911 service.  

After some well-publicized tragedies, the FCC quickly focused on this specific issue (out of a larger number of issues) in its already-pending 2004 VoIP NPRM.  Acting quickly, and unanimously, the FCC issued an Order in 2005, adopting some interim measures to: 1) better inform consumers of the limits of nomadic VoIP services, and 2) to ensure that "interconnected" VoIP providers quickly became able to offer E911 service to their customers by terminating calls through CLECs.  

But, if the VoIP 911 matter was an example of interested stakeholders (carriers and public safety/law enforcement) forthrightly putting their interests on the table, and the FCC balancing those interests to find the best solution for consumers, the FCC's recent Broadband Privacy Order provides a good illustration of the exact opposite type of proceeding. 

Broadband Privacy ≠ Internet Privacy

The Commission's classification of broadband Internet access service as a "telecommunications service," in its 2015 Open Internet Order, in turn, allowed the FCC to define what information, with respect to this service, it would define as "customer proprietary network information" ("CPNI") under Section 222 of the Act.  Section 222 defines CPNI as, essentially, information that the service provider knows by virtue of providing a telecom service to a customer, and requires the carrier to obtain customer permission before selling the customer's CPNI to a third party.  

The Interent Service Providers ("ISPs") argued that consumer Internet usage information is not information uniquely held by the ISP, in the way that CPNI was uniquely in possession of a telecommunications carrier in 1996 (when Congress wrote the law).  See, e.g., AT&T Comments pp.9-30.  Rather, the primary market for consumers' internet usage information is the online advertising market. , in which the ISPs do not possess sufficient unique, or valuable, consumer information to even possess a measurable share of the market.

Indeed, consumer Internet usage information is "monetized" in the online advertising market--a market in which almost 2/3's of all revenue, and 90% of growth since 1Q 2015, is controlled by Google and Facebook!  Significantly, the online advertising market is also one in which no ISP even possess a measurable share of the market.  Not surprisingly, according to Princeton University researchers, Google and Facebook account for all of the top 10 third party trackers on the Web

 The ISPs explained that, despite the FCC's rhetoric in its NPRM about consumer "privacy,"

[n]o matter what the Commission does in this proceeding, major actors in the Internet ecosystem will continue to track and use all of the same information the proposed rules would keep ISPs from efficiently tracking and using.

See, e.g., AT&T Comments at p. 35 (emphasis added).  Thus, they argued, the FCC's proposed rules would not enhance consumer privacy, but merely foreclose competition in the online advertising market.

Party Participation vs. Proxy Participation

Given the competitive significance of the FCC's proposed rules, you might think the record in this proceeding would pit edge providers and ISPs against each other, with each side trying to show why the ISPs do/don't possess some unique information about their customers that is worthy of rules protecting its disclosure.  If this was your guess, you'd be half right; the ISPs definitely showed up with their best information/arguments.  

On the other side, though, neither Google/Alphabet, nor Facebook appears in any search of this docket.  Yet, the FCC had no trouble finding support in the record for its contention  that it is the ISPs from whom consumers' information needed protection, and not the two dominant firms in the business of collecting and selling that information.  If you look through the Order, you'll see that a majority of the support the FCC cites is supplied by parties with ties to Google, Facebook, or other edge providers.

For example, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (cited 45 times in the Order) is a frequent advocate for, and recipient of funding from, both Google and Facebook.  We've discussed Public Knowledge (56 cites) here before, but it and other groups that the Commission cites frequently, like the Center for Democracy & Technology (61 cites),  and the New America Foundation Open Technology Institute (72 cites) are also supported by Google.  The Commission also cited a paper filed by Upturn, which is a legal/policy advocacy group, whose involvement was sponsored by the Media Democracy Fund (supported by edge providers Microsoft and Tumblr.) 

Even groups with names as innocuous as Consumer Federation of America/California, Consumer Watchdog, and National Consumers League are groups for which Google discloses support.  Academics, as well, may have more than an "academic" interest.

Princeton University Professor, Nick Feamster comments, but doesn't disclose that he has received $1.6  million from Google over the past 5 years.  Other Princeton faculty members filed comments similar to Feamster's.  And, in May, Princeton's Center for Information Technology Policy, of which Feamster is Acting Director, was a co-sponsor, along with Google-funded Center for Democracy and Technology, of a policy conference on the topic of "broadband privacy."  The Google Transparency Project notes that 5 of the 7 panelists at the event had received support from Google.   

You Need Not Be Present to Win

The reasons behind some parties' participation doesn't mean that their advocacy/arguments were wrong, but the FCC woud have benefited more from a direct exchange between both sides with first-hand knowledge of the consumer information they track.  And, why weren't Google and Facebook in the record, making these points, themselves? 

One reason could have been that more information about these firms' dominance in online advertising came out over the summer, including a paper by one of the Princeton academics in this proceeding, noting that Google and Facebook controlled all the top 10 third-party trackers.  Another reason for Google's absence may have been that it went back on its self-imposed ban on using consumers' personally-identifiable information in its web tracking, according to this ProPublica report

Would it have been embarrassing for the leading edge providers to ask the government for protection from competition?  Maybe, but consumers deserved the ability to transparently see which side--between two interested parties--the government was choosing, and why.  

   *    *    *

The FCC's leadership has been willing to undertake ideological crusades for the sole purpose of advantaging politically-favored firms.  The transparent nature of the FCC's actions ensure that they will quickly be undone by a subsequent Commission.  The legacy of such leadership leaves only acrimony among the majority of Commissioners trying to put consumers first.  Hopefully, the next FCC will  learn from history.


  

March 17, 2016 4:48 PM

FCC Chairman Wheeler's Privacy Shell Game

In the past week, Chairman Wheeler has become the pied piper of the tech press.  He's been fawningly referred to as "the Dragonslayer," and, "the broadband industry's worst nightmare" (an encomium previously reserved for Comcast).  

Starting with a Huffington Post editorial entitled, "It's Your Data: Empowering Consumers to Protect Online Privacy," the Chairman has spawned copy that would draw an immediate FTC fine if it were attached to a product instead of a policy.  For example, NPR's headline, says the Chairman's proposed Internet privacy rules are going to "Let Consumers Set the Cost of Internet Privacy." New York Magazine's headline went further, saying  "The FCC Wants to Let Us Choose How Much the Internet Knows About Us."  

Unfortunately for Internet users, the reality is that--on the Internet--privacy is binary; you either have it, or you don't.  Moreover, as the Erin Andrews case demonstrates, on the Internet, when your information is lost to one person, it's available to everyone.  What is most concerning is not that the Chairman's proposed ISP privacy rules can't deliver on these fantastic promises, but that in the Chairman's Set Top Box NPRM, consumers are actually losing privacy that they used to have.   

Your Information Is Already on the Internet

It's no secret that, "your information is the commodity that drives the internet economy."  Nor is it any secret that this is the price the largest "free" websites/services charge for their services--such as those provided by Apple, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft.  

Likewise, Google is the leading online advertiser because it knows the most about you--and, according to the NY Times it is only getting better at gathering your information.  If you're interested, and have a Google account, here's an article with some links that allow you to see how much Google knows about you, based on your self-identified use of its apps.  But, these links don't tell you how much "pretty close to personal" data Google has collected on you, or what it has acquired through your use of its Android mobile operating system and mobile apps--which now account for 60% of mobile devices in the U.S.

The firms mentioned above are just the ones that you know have your information.  There is a whole industry comprised of firms, the names of which most people wouldn't recognize, called "data brokers."  These data brokers also track your Internet usage--and combine that information with other, personal information that they buy from your online merchants--to form a pretty accurate personal profile of all your online activity, which they make available to anyone willing to pay. 

ISP Privacy Rules Won't Give You "More" Privacy

Not surprisingly, according to experts, your ISP doesn't have any information about you that isn't already available from multiple other sources.  In fact, Professor Peter Swire of Georgia Tech says that, due to consumers' increased use of encryption, multiple connected devices, and proxy services, like VPNs, your ISP may actually know less about your Internet behavior than the websites you visit.

Of course, every expert doesn't agree completely with Prof. Swire's conclusions. In a thorough article presenting the opposing side, Computerworld reports that some experts disagree with Prof. Swire about how much of a consumer's Internet traffic ISPs can see--because encryption isn't always as effective as consumers might think, and even VPNs/DNS proxy services can be configured poorly.   Thus, Computerworld counsels readers to assume the worst, and that, "[m]uch like Google, your ISP knows everything about you."


                Now you all know everything about me . . .

Said differently, "the Internet" will not know one less fact about me if my ISP stops being the nth company to tell advertisers that I'm the leading YouTube viewer of "Lancelot Link: Secret Chimp" videos.  Rather, as Roslyn Layton explains, the effect of the proposed rules will be confined mostly to the ISPs, who must rely on consumers to pay an even larger share of the network costs, and the online advertising market--which needs more competition, not less. But, as for me, I get no "more" privacy than I have now.

Set Top Boxes Aren't Cheaper If You Pay with Your Privacy

Almost 30 years ago, during the politically polarized Senate confirmation hearings on President Reagan's Supreme Court nominee--Judge Robert Bork--some of the Judge's opponents were able to obtain his video rental history from his video store.  His opponents didn't find anything embarrassing, but they sparked a bi-partisan public outcry for laws to protect citizens from this type of repulsive invasion of privacy. Here's a contemporary article from the Chicago Tribune.   

Congress, though, was in front of the public this time, and Judge Bork's enemies could not have obtained his TV viewing records (if he was even a cable subscriber at the time), because in 1984 Congress had passed the Cable Communications Policy Act, protecting video subscribers' privacy. 47 U.S.C. 631   Since then, the FCC has had rules in place preventing the disclosure of personally-identifiable viewer information to third parties. 

In its Set Top Box NPRM, the Commission asserts that it will not totally ignore the requirements of the law, but the proposed rules would require the regulated entity (your cable or satellite MVPD) to send your personally-identifiable information to an unregulated third party providing a video navigation service.  The Commission suggests just asking Google and the data brokers to "self-certify" that they are complying with the legal obligations that apply to cable/satellite companies. See, NPRM at paras 73-74, 78.

Putting aside the dubious legality of the FCC's proposal, the Commission is exhibiting an almost-willful disregard for the purpose of the statute--or even worse, the importance of television as a shared medium.  The very nature of specific, viewer-tracked, ad delivery--of the kind Google proposes--is invasive.  Unless everyone gets the ad for [insert embarrassing product], then only the consumer gets embarrassed--when his friends watching March Madness ask, "why do I only see this ad at your house?"  

The Commission is expected to initiate an NPRM at its March 31st Open Meeting, for the purpose of ensuring that "consumers know what they are agreeing to when they sign up for Internet service."  There is nothing wrong with this goal.  In fact, it sounds a lot like the 32 year old law requiring TV providers to tell consumers the "nature of personally identifiable information collected or to be collected with respect to the subscriber and the nature of the use of such information."  Let's hope the data brokers are OK with that . . .

March 15, 2016 10:07 AM

What's Good for Google . . . Is Good for the FCC

More than a year before the Chairman's "unlock the box" initiative, the Chairman had a different idea:  if the FCC made it easier to become an over-the-top ("OTT") multi-channel video programming distributor ("MVPD"), then more companies would enter the market, and this competition would benefit all subscription video consumers.  You might think this would appeal to a new entrant with TV ambitions, like Google.

After all, the subscription TV market is devilishly hard to penetrate even if you can get the capital to build a distribution system.  A year ago, Google had 20,000 customers in Kansas City--after 5 years of trying.  But, Google wasn't in love with the Chairman's idea.  Why not?

The Market Is Internet Advertising . . . on TV Screens

Google is the dominant company in Internet advertising because it sells information about you--that it learns from your use of its applications, and devices--to advertisers.   If you're using the Internet, whether on a computer, mobile phone, or tablet, then there's a 70-85% likelihood that you're looking at Google ads (according this WSJ article re: the FTC Bureau of Competition 2012 staff recommendation on Google's abuse of its market power in online advertising). 

When you watch TV, however, the ads you see are not targeted at you personally, because they haven't been placed by Google.  This is something Google has been trying to fix since shortly after it first announced plans to build a fiber network.  Google, through its Google TV, and then Android TV, project makes "smart TVs" (with Google software built into the TV) and "buddy boxes" (set top boxes that work with a cable box/cable remote) available to consumers.  But none of these efforts have been particularly successful--leading industry observers to conclude that Google needed "another path to the TV screen."  

Then, a year ago, Google decided to try an "experiment" in Kansas City in which it combined its TV customers' content, and viewing history, with its advertising algorithms in order to sell targeted ads on the customers' TV screens.  Most likely, Google discovered that the content itself was the secret ingredient that would allow it to integrate the TV screen into its advertising universe.  

So why not become an OTT MVPD in the proceeding that Chairman Wheeler had initiated in December of 2014?  One obvious problem with this strategy is that MVPDs have long been subject to extremely strict FCC rules about disclosing customers' personally-identifiable information--rules that don't apply to edge providers like Google. The other problem with this approach is that the subscription TV market is devilishly hard to penetrate--just to get access to the customer's video content. Thus, shortly after Google announced its Kansas City TV experiment, it (along with several of its Google TV partners, trade associations, and pressure groups) formed the Consumer Video Choice Coalition ("CVCC") and began lobbying the Commission on a new set of issues.

The FCC Unbundles Video to Create "Device Market" Competition?

On February 18th, after 6 months of intensive lobbying by the CVCC, the FCC voted to require multichannel video programming distributors (hereinafter "MVPDs") to, effectively, "unbundle" the video stream going to and from the customer's television.  See, "Set Top Box NPRM".   The Commission explains that its proposed rules requiring video stream unbundling are necessary "because MVPDs offer products that directly compete with navigation devices and therefore have an incentive to withhold permission or constrain innovation, which would frustrate Section 629's goal of assuring a commercial market for navigation devices." Set Top Box NPRM at para 12. 

The FCC seems to believe that if it can imply that the MVPDs were responsible for the failure of the Commission's CableCARD rules, and that the MVPDs would likely frustrate any future rules to facilitate device interoperability, then it will be justified in implementing full-scale video stream unbundling.  So, on the thinnest of grounds--a couple of anecdotes, and a facially absurd theory--the FCC asserts that that MVPDs "offered poor support" for the CableCARD rules, and have the ability and incentive to frustrate the manufacture/sale of navigation devices by third parties. Set Top Box NPRM at paras 7, 12, and 28. The actual answer to the Commission's question was already available--but it wasn't the right answer.

The Commission's theory regarding MVPD's "incentive and ability" to foreclose third party sales of navigation devices has been litigated through trial in two separate consumer class action antitrust cases, and this theory has never been found to be supported by any evidence.  See, Jarrett v. Insight Communications Co., (W.D. Ky. July 14, 2014)  
 and Healy v. Cox Enterprises (W.D. Ok. Dec. 15, 2015).  If you bother to read either of these cases, you may also be surprised to learn that the device manufacturing market is very competitive--with at least 5 major vendors competing for each cable system.

So, as was the case with the Commission's reclassification of broadband Internet access, a very small number of privileged entities (Google, its partners and pressure groups) benefit from rules designed to address conduct that is not even hypothetically rational--much less, likely.   Still, you might think, who cares if the TV providers now have to compete with Google to sell ads to viewers?  But, Google won't be competing with your TV provider.

Don't Expect Much New Competition in the Device, or Online Advertising, Markets

One of the issues from the Commission's Net Neutrality Order (currently on appeal) is whether the FCC could, as part of reclassifying broadband Internet access as a "telecommunications service," classify all of an Internet user's formerly non-confidential information (the kind Google sells to advertisers) as "Customer Proprietary Network Information" ("CPNI") under Section 222 of the Act.  The statutory definition of CPNI is fairly broad, and includes information "made available to the carrier by the customer solely by virtue of the carrier-customer relationship." 47 USC 222(f)(1).  

If the DC Circuit agrees with the FCC that previously non-confidential customer data is now CPNI, as the result of the Commission's change in service definitions, then the FCC could limit the ability of ISPs to provide customer usage information to advertisers.  This was exactly the position that was being urged on the Commission by the Eric Schmidt/Google-funded pressure group New America, only a week before Chairman Wheeler put his "unlock the box" editorial on Recode.   

Last Wednesday, in a Senate Judiciary Committee Oversight Hearing, FTC chair, Edith Ramirez, was grilled on why the FTC overrode the recommendations of its Bureau of Competition and closed an investigation into Google's abuse of its market dominance in the online advertising market.  Not un-ironically, two days later, the FCC released a "fact sheet,"   describing its proposed rules to prevent ISPs from competing in that market by providing the same kind of ads that Google does--over your computer, mobile, and now, TV screens.  

February 17, 2010 5:59 PM

Ich Bin Ein "Googleiner"

With sincere apologies to the members of the Google Nation, let me be clear about my last post.  I was not "hating on" Google.  My only point was to try to mollify some of the "irrational exuberance" that emerged on the Net (and in the press) as a result of Google's understated "announcement" of its plans for a broadband experiment.  For those that didn't read my last post, one week ago (Wednesday, February 10th), Google stated on their corporate blog that they would like to build a fiber network to deliver 1 Gigabit speeds to anywhere from 50,000 to 500,000 homes.  Most ensuing stories on the Net and in the press reported on/reacted to this announcement as if the project was already under construction.  

For those who want to believe in the existence of a "Google-Claus", I strongly recommend the dose of reality that you can get from reading Harold Feld's post from yesterday, where he does an excellent job of providing a detailed account about Google's success through the years of "bluffing" and "slow-playing" regulators and network operators in order to get network operators and their end-users to front the cap-ex to support the transmission speeds that will enable Google to offer more services with which to economically advance their business.  There is little reason to believe that this announced "experiment" will bring Google any closer to being a broadband ISP than any of their previous rhetoric.  

On the other hand, Google has been quite straightforward about their business plan, which is to create applications that allow them to capture more and more customer information that they then "monetize" through (essentially) resale to advertisers. Therefore, I come not to bury Google, but to praise them . . . for their honesty in dealing with users of all their services, including Google "Buzz" (which coincidentally was really launched on the same day that their broadband network plans were announced).  In a reaction that is surpassing strange, the outrage on the Net and in the "blogosphere" over Google Buzz is comparable to the enthusiasm surrounding Google's 1 Gig "broadband network."

But why do I say the outrage about the Google "Buzz" product is as perplexing as the enthusiasm over the non-existant, broadband network?  Well, it's simple.  Google has never been in the business of being a telecom network operator.  In fact, if Google has read the newspapers over the last 10 years--and it's clear they have--we can assume Google knows that entering the retail broadband Internet access market (even at efficient scale) is very often a good way to make a small fortune (out of their current large fortune).  To the contrary, though, Google is in the business of obtaining and selling Internet user information.  

On this point, Google could not have been more clear with users of its products.  Only two months ago, Google's CEO, Eric Schmidt, told Americans--on a national cable network--in a statement that was widely repeated, something to the effect that if consumers don't want people to know what they're doing online, then they shouldn't be doing it [at least not using Google services] in the first place.  To underline a point, shortly thereafter, one of the founders of Google's major search partner--Mozilla Firefox--encouraged users to switch to Microsoft Bing for privacy reasons

In short, if consumers decided to continue to avail themselves of Google's "free" services (like Gmail or Google Search), even after Google's December clarification that consumer privacy concerns take a back seat to Google's policy of using consumer information generated by use of its products for its commercial purposes, then it's a little difficult to understand all the "outrage" surrounding Google's Buzz product.  When one considers that many of these same critics are also arguing for rules to keep the Internet "open", the complaints are even more difficult to indulge.  Do these outraged privacy watchdogs really want an "open" Internet, or just an extension of the "Nanny-state" that relieves them of any personal responsibility with respect to how they use the Internet?  

On this controversy, Google is in the right.  They've given consumers enough information to make up their own minds.  If consumers choose not to use this information, then what is the point of an "open" Internet?  What is Google's incentive to continue to innovate and provide "free" services to those customers that have nothing to hide, and are happy to trade information for applications?  

If we regulate Google's online behavior, next thing you know, we're regulating the ability of legitimate Nigerian businessmen to use the Internet to raise capital--just to get at the few fraudsters that abuse the gullibility of some Internet users.  But how does this "outrage" do anything to promote commerce, jobs, innovation and openness?  It doesn't, and it's about time for the "Internet police" to dial back the schadenfreude, and lay off the last guardian of the open Internet.

February 13, 2010 6:12 AM

Google's "Think Big Gig": What Is And What Should [Will] Never Be

And if you say to me tomorrow
Oh, what fun it all would be
then what's to stop us, pretty baby
but what is and what should never be
-Led Zeppelin, "What Is And What Should Never Be"

With profuse apologies to Led Zeppelin for blaspheming their iconic song title to do a telecom policy blog, this is essentially what Google announced to DC policy makers, via its corporate/policy blog, on Wednesday--except that the policymakers and the press didn't hear the last line.  But, boy, did they eat up the first few . . . you can tell that Valentine's is in the air.

I say the "announcement" was targeted toward policy makers, because absolutely no relevant business information was provided in the announcement--you know . . .  costs, prices, projected revenues, technology to be used, etc.  No vendors, competitors, or even Google's Clearwire partners (a venture from which--according to news reports--Google has been backing away) were interviewed or consulted.  No, but that's OK, because this wasn't a business "announcement."

What the "announcement" really says is how much political clout Google carries in Washington.  On a day when the Gub'ment is closed for a fourth consecutive day, some of the most important Government officials involved in technology policy were intrigued enough to very quickly issue "statements" in reaction to Google's blog post.

For example, the New York Times story actually contains a "statement" from Chairman Genachowski reacting to the Google blog post, and the statement reacts to Google's announcement like it were an "official" announcement--like a firm commitment to enter a market in a specific way, explaining product terms and prices, entry timing, costs, and projected revenues.  The Hill even contains a statement from Senator John Kerry, Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet.  Moreover, just about every story you'll read really "drank the Kool-Aid."  From the articles I saw on line, only Computerworld got it right.   

But what gives me the right to question Google's ambitiously-admirable, but vaguely-defined, "experiment", the belief of the bulk of the press, and some of the most important officials in Washington?  Well . . . there's this small problem of the facts and the logic.  First, Google's blog never says exactly how they plan to offer this 1 gigabit/sec (1,000 megabit/sec) broadband service at a "competitive price."  Second, the whole theory seems to contain a pretty glaring logical flaw: wouldn't Google deciding to become a broadband ISP allow other Broadand ISPs into Google's monopoly business?


Continue reading Google's "Think Big Gig": What Is And What Should [Will] Never Be