Google’s Serial Bad Acts Harm American Interests in Europe

 

Google has no shame. Google is throwing stones at Europe while living in a glass house.

Summary

In response to a non-binding resolution passed by a 384-174 vote by the European Parliament to urge the European Commission to enforce European law against Google’s search engine >90% dominance of the European digital market, Google has advanced three self-serving, America-harming, PR narratives that the overwhelming evidence shows are untrue.

One American bad apple is spoiling it for the whole American bunch.

First, Google shamelessly plays the victim acting like it hasn’t done anything wrong worthy of European law enforcement when Google knows the evidence proves it is a serial bad actor with the worst antitrust, privacy, and property infringement rap sheet of any American multinational in Europe or the world.

A European Revolution against Google’s Virtual Colonialization?

 

The European Parliament reportedly is scheduled to vote this week on a political non-binding resolution urging the European Commission to “enforce EU competition rules decisively” against search engines, i.e. Google.

What is going on?

In a nutshell, this vote has three big effective implications. It is a political revolt and declaration of Independence from Google’s virtual hegemony. It is a rejection of former EC Vice President Almunia’s gross mishandling of the Google competition case. And it is a vote for a European “single digital market” to promote European economic growth and job creation.  

A Political Revolt & Declaration of Independence

Top Ten Questions to Ask About Title II Utility Regulation of Internet

 

If Congress or the media seek incisive oversight/accountability questions to ask the FCC about the real world implications and unintended consequences of its Title II net neutrality plans, here are ten that fit the bill.

 

  1. Authority? If the FCC truly needs more legal authority to do what it believes necessary in the 21st century, why doesn’t the FCC start the FCC modernization process and ask Congress for the legitimacy of real modern legislative authorities? Or is it the official position of the FCC that its core 1934 and 1996 statutory authorities are sufficiently timeless, modern and flexible to sustain the legitimacy of FCC regulation for the remainder of the 21st century?

  2. Growth & Job Creation? While it may be good for the FCC’s own power in the short-term to impose its most antiquated authority and restrictive Title II regulations on the most modern part of the economy, how would that heavy-handed regulation be good or positive for net private investment, economic growth and job creation?  

The GoogleNet Playbook & Zero Pricing – A Special Report

 

GoogleNet is Google’s vision to leverage its proliferating dominance by offering global, near-free Internet-access, mobile connectivity, and Internet-of-Things connectivity via a global, largely-wireless, Android-based, “GoogleNet,” that is subsidized by Google’s search and search advertising dominance and by “open Internet” zero pricing of downstream Internet traffic.

A near-free global GoogleNet would be much like the Google Playbook which offers Android, Maps, YouTube, and others’ content for free globally, to disrupt and commoditize competitors in order to maintain and extend its search and search advertising dominance throughout the economy.

Top Ten Adjectives to Describe FCC Title II Net Neutrality Regulation

 

The top ten most descriptive adjectives for the President’s claim that Title II utility regulation authority is needed to implement net neutrality are:

 

  1. UNTRUE

  2. UNWARRANTED

  3. UNNECESSARY

  4. UNFAIR  

  5. UNPOPULAR

NetCompetition on President's Call for FCC Title II Internet Regulation

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                           

November 10, 2014

Contact:  Scott Cleland 703-217-2407

 

The President’s Call for Regulating the Internet as a Title II Utility Could Break the Global Internet

Autocratic Nations Want the UN’s International Telecommunications Union to Control the Internet

Reclassifying the Internet as “Telecommunications” Isn’t Domestic Policy, but Trade/Foreign Policy    

 

WASHINGTON D.C. – The following may be attributed to Scott Cleland, Chairman of NetCompetition:

The Federal Communications Congress? – My Daily Caller Op-ed

 

Please don’t miss my Daily Caller op-ed here: “The Federal Communications Congress?”

It explains how the FCC would be reversing longstanding, successful, bipartisan U.S. trade and foreign policy, if it unilaterally reversed the legal status of Internet traffic from an un-tariffed information service to a price (and tariff) regulated “telecommunications” service.  

This is Part 71 of my FCC Open Internet Order Series.

***                 

FCC Open Internet Order Series

Part 1: The Many Vulnerabilities of an Open Internet [9-24-09]

Google’s Dominance Isn’t Peaking Its Proliferating!

 

Apparently Google hopes to convince the new European Commission to buy into the same market predicate that it convinced Mr. Almunia to accept -- that the fast and ever-changing Internet marketplace has rendered lasting market dominance and antitrust enforcement obsolete.

Like a magician or illusionist, one can make another believe anything if they can misdirect their attention from what is really going on. 

Google’s latest misdirection ploy is to focus the media and the new EC on its new “peak” PR narrative that its search and Android dominance is at a “peak” -- with the implication that Google’s market position is fleeting and will only go down from here because fast-changing innovation and competition will naturally supplant it.

And by extension, if people accept that Google’s dominance is “peaking” then they can more easily be convinced that Google’s dominance could decrease naturally without any government intervention.

This “peak” market frame is clever misdirection because it distracts people from focusing on how Google is broadly abusing its market dominance to extend its market power into additional, adjacent, and nascent markets.

However, a new competitor or innovation can only have a chance to supplant Google, if Google does not neutralize or dominate the new competitor or innovation first.

FCC Should Ask Congress for Authority to Address Internet Fast Lane Issue

 

If the FCC believes it needs additional legal authority to ensure no Internet “fast lanes” or “paid prioritization,” it should ask Congress for the authority to do it.

That’s what agency “creatures of Congress” do when their original legal authorities have obsolesced and need modernization to remain functional. It’s Congress’ constitutional role to set American communications/Internet policy; it’s the FCC’s role to implement and adjudicate it. That’s basically why the U.S. D.C. Court of Appeals overturned the FCC in 2010 in Comcast v. FCCand again in 2014 in Verizon v. FCC.

Google’s Mission Statement Updated – A Satire

 

Last week the Financial Times asked Google CEO Larry Page in an interview on Google’s ambitions if Google needed to update its well-known mission statement: “To organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”

Mr. Page actually responded: “I think we do, probably. We’re still working that out.” 

Top Ten Suggested Google Mission Statement Updates – A Satire   

Pages

Q&A One Pager Debunking Net Neutrality Myths