YouTube

Kudos to Richard Waters of FT for his insightful analysis "Google triumphant."

Let me highlight some key takeaways:

• “The failure of the Microsoft/Yahoo merger eliminates the biggest short-term threat” to Google’s unrivalled position on the web, says David Yoffie, a professor at Harvard Business School. For now, its momentum “seems unstoppable”.

The article also provides excellent new detail to the thesis in my Googleopoly analysis and Senate testimony that Google's real dominance is as the dominant "market maker" for online advertising.

The American Consumer Intstitute just put out a good consumergram on: the DOJ investigation of the Google-Yahoo deal and asks if the search market has reached a tipping point.

• The ACI consumergram is asking the right questions.
• More entities should be, and will be, asking these types of questions going forward because the facts and Google's behavior will demand it.

As I explained in detail in my Googleopoly analysis, the search market has already tipped to Google and the Google-DoubleClick merger was a tipping point to enable Google to extend its market power in search advertising to display and online advertising as well.

As I explained the stakes of lax antitrust enforcement in my Senate Judiciary testimony:

"The Stakes of Lax Antitrust Enforcement: Will Google be enabled to become the:

• “Online-advertising bottleneck provider” picking Internet content winners and losers?

A Yahoo-Google search outsourcing pact arguably faces even more problems with European antitrust authorities than the reported U.S. DOJ antitrust investigation, for two reasons:

A consistent theme in my ongoing analysis of Google, has been Google's corporate refusal to overtly disclose the fundamental financial conflict of interest inherent in their business model, i.e that Google does not work for users like they routinely claim, but for advertisers and publishers. 

• The best example of the serious risks to users of this undisclosed conflict of interest has been how Google has reacted since early April to the dramatic increase in risk to its users of indentity theft and fraud by cyber-criminals exploiting security weaknesses in Google's search results.
  • I have blogged on that serious breach of consumer protection here, here, here, here, and here .  
• I personally have seen the consumer devastation that undisclosed conflicts of interest can cause.
  • After the collapse of Enron, I was asked to testify in the Senate on how conflicts of interests were integral to Enron's fraud.
  • I was also asked to testify on the dangers of undisclosed conflicts of interest in the House during the tech meltdown.

Interestingly, it appears I am not the only one concerned that Google's advertising-based search model has a serious inherent conflict of interest.

Dominant #1 Google, in calling #2 Yahoo to discuss a slow competitive search surrender by Yahoo to Google, in order to thwart a purchase of Yahoo by #3 Microsoft, apparently succeeded.

Interested observers in the Microsoft-Yahoo-Google-AOL-Ask.com-MySpace incestuous soap opera called search advertising, would be wise to bone up on the fine line between acceptable industry collaboration and illegal collusion, if recent reports prove true.

• The Wall Street Journal reports that Yahoo may be days away from announcing "an agreement to carry search advertisements from Google.." and that Google feels "that the upside is much greater than the potential downside" from the arrangement."  
• The Financial Times broke the story that the Department of Justice was investigating Google's interaction with Yahoo and that "the prosecution of collusion is a top priority."     

The fine line between collaboration and collusion. 

First, while many may be aware that a Google-Yahoo outsourcing deal "would likely attract intense antitrust scrutiny" there is precious little analysis on this linchpin issue -- hence the genesis of this piece.

I believe the pattern of Google becoming the outsourced search engine for most all of the Internet -- save for a few properties -- is one of the most important and least understood competitive Internet issues.  

CNBC's Maria Bartaromo had a rare in-depth TV interview with Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

The comments that have relevance to net neutrality were how Google's CEO, one of the biggest proponent for Net Neutrality legislation of broadband networks in the world, candidly admitted that all customers were not alike; that they have different needs; and that Google plans to charge those who want higher quality of service -- more money.

• Bartiromo: "What about the corporate customer? I understand that there are tests going on right now. What are you hearing from that customer?"

  Schmidt: "We're working with the corporate customers to do the same thing inside their networks as we do with consumers. Now, corporate customers are
  not the same thing as consumer customers. Corporate customers have a much higher need for reliability, so we'll sign an agreement that guarantees a certain level of service. But then we charge for it. So that's a case where people are willing to pay for something which is free without the level of reliability. They also have other needs. They need greater security, for all the obvious reasons. And they also need better integration with all of the other services that their companies have. This is a long process. It's not a fast process. But it's very deeply valuable. And those customers we will have for 20 or 30 or 40 years as they build into our model. We like that model. It's an enterprise play. It's a business that I've been in for a long time, and one which will ultimately be very, very lucrative through Google." [Bold added]

Google deserves some bona fide kudos from me for blogging yesterday with some very sound and practical advice about how their users or anyone who reads their blog - could avoid getting hooked/scammed by fraudsters.

• As a consumer, I learned a couple of new tips to better protect myself from phishing fraud.
• The advice was clear, practical, informative and useful.

However, I was surprised that they did not choose to link to other sites in and out of government that could also be useful to consumers looking to protect themselves better.

I was also surprised it took a month for Google to say anything about how users could better protect themselves from new fraud scams that were exploiting weaknesses in Google's search engine protections so that Google was unwittingly offering up scam pages as part of their search results.

Tom Sydnor of the Progress and Freedom Foundation has done a brilliant analysis of Professor Larry Lessig's book "Free Culture" in the important context of Professor Lessig's other works. 

• This analysis is outstanding foundational-thinking and a must read for anyone who cares about preserving a free market Internet.  

Let me highlight some gems:

First, his conclusion:

• "The preceding analysis shows that FREE CULTURE does demonize copyright owners and does urge the government to eliminate copyrights and impose "quasi-socialist utopianism." Nor does this pattern stop with copyrights. Indeed, the preceding analysis shows Lessig has already claimed that to Save the Net, the government must nationalize or heavily regulate:

  • The providers of Internet-access services that own the physical network infrastructure, (e.g., net neutrality);

   

  • The providers of commercial internet applications and services, like eBay, Amazon, and Google (e.g., CODE); and

   

The buzz is that House Subcommittee Chairman Markey is planning a hearing on net neutrality for Tuesday May 6th (probably AM) -- if they can line up their witnesses, which are still TBD.

• It is not on the Committee website and until it is, its not official.

I wouldn't be surprised if Professor Lessig is asked to testify yet again, after testifying before the Senate last week and the FCC the week before.