Ready, aim, fire — at Google at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s antitrust subcommittee hearing happening right now in Washington, D.C.

It is titled: “The Power of Google: Serving Consumers or Threatening Competition?”

Here we go:

11:04 am: As usual in D.C., the Senators on the committee get to pontificate first.

Oh, joy! (I used to live there and cover Congress stuff for the Washington Post from time to time and I am having bad déjà vu right now.)

A quick cut to Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt, who is appearing alone. He looks a little peaked, especially as the pols begin to describe the scary behemoth the search giant is.

And also that it is trying to force users to its other products.

Rut-roh.

11:07 am: Sen. Mike Lee, the Republican from Utah, who is a Google critic, is talking on about the search giant’s power, reading from his testimony in a dullish style.

I thought this dude was a Tea Party firebrand!

“The primary focus should be consumer welfare,” he says, blah, blah, blaaaaaaah.

11:09 am: Now, the subcommittee’s dour chairman, Sen. Herb Kohl from Wisconsin, is introing Schmidt, who is actually being introed by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

She is an Eric fan, obvi, praising his accomplishments at Google. But she also gives props to Jeffrey Katz, CEO of Nextag, who is testifying against Google later. Also, let her add, is the fabulous CEO of Yelp, Jeremy Stoppelman, another anti-Google speaker to come.

“I hope they tango rather than tangle,” says Feinstein inexplicably about those called to testify. Hey, white geeks can’t dance, although wrestling would also be hard for them too.

In any case, gotta love these everybody-loving pols!

11:14 am: Finally, Schmidt, who — of course — starts off invoking the last big tech giant who was here getting spanked by Congress.

Schmidt does not name Microsoft — classy, by which I mean not at all — but is referring to the software giant.

“We get it,” he says about the lessons Google has learned from Microsoft’s own antitrust troubles back in the day.

11:18 am: Schmidt is talking about Google and saying he welcomes the competition.

“Today it’s Google turn in the spotlight,” he says, still not uttering the word “Microsoft,” much as Microsoft execs have often not been able to say Google. “One company’s past [should] not be another company’s future.”

Now, the senators can have at him. Kohl is up first.

11:20 am: The first question is if Google is favoring its own products, via search.

Schmidt harkens back to what he calls early Google lore that it is just trying hard to get consumers stuff quicker.

The need for speed!

“Is really trusting Google to do the right thing sufficient?,” asks Kohl, who quotes former President Ronald Reagan’s famous line: “Trust but verify.”

That gives Schmidt the chance to talk about how quickly Google could lose out to competitors and then is onto how hard it is to do what Google does.

It takes extra-smart smartypants. Trust us, he says, as we are smartier!

11:24 am: Kohl comes back with a damning quote from Google’s famous Marissa Mayer, who apparently has said that the company favors its own products and why not?

Schmidt says he was not there when she allegedly said this, but that its own testing and intuition tells Google if consumers want a Google map or whatever tout de suite!

Kohl repeats the Mayer quote again: “We do all the work for the search page, so we put [a Google Maps link] in first.”

“I will let Marissa speak for herself,” says Schmidt, now too deep in the weeds of her verbal faux pas. Get out, Eric!

11:28 am: Sen. Lee is up, not taking any of this speedy, we-know-best business.

And he has a chart! I love a good chart. It shows Google info always ranks first in listings versus other sites it competes with.

Schmidt has not seen this poll, but thinks it is not accurate.

11:31 am: Let me note that Schmidt’s grey suit is fantastic looking. And right behind him, you can see Google’s top lawyer, the always nattily dressed David Drummond.

Back to the chart!

Lee wants to know why, according to his chart, that Google seems to come up first.

“Either way, you’ve cooked it,” claims Lee.

“Senator, I can assure you we have not cooked anything,” counters Schmidt.

(Note: Google does have an excellent cafeteria in Silicon Valley, complete with organic arugula and Kombucha for all.)

11:33 am: Hoo boy! But Lee’s time has expired, so Schmidt gets a break in the form of New York’s Sen. Charles Schumer.

I like the way he says “ee-no-vation” for innovation.

He does an expected plug for New York, of course. Somehow it is No. 1 in tech. Not so much, but brag on, Chuck!

11:38 am: Schumer is still talking about New York and its fab entrepreneurs.

Apparently, he has done a lot of jawboning with start-up dudes (likely over Kombucha) and they think Google is a positive force.

“Google is actually pretty good, we don’t see them as rapacious,” Schumer says the New York nerds tell him.

Is “rapacious” the criteria here?

Schumer is running out of time and has yet to ask a question and now is trying to get Schmidt to test Google’s broadband project in the Hudson Valley.

Now that’s rapacious!

Is there going to be an actual question here?

Yes: Oh please tell us, genius boy, what could Google do better?

Really.

11:42 am: Now, Sen. John Cornyn from Texas is on and asking about the prescription controversy Google was embroiled in recently.

Oops, I missed a bit when someone called me about the CEO mess at Hewlett-Packard I reported on earlier.

Onto Senator Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota. She is cleverly using an article about the Vikings football team to ask about how Google’s super-secret-sauce algorithm works and how it ranks results.

“Do you think companies should have a lot more certainty in how they are ranked?,” she asks.

11:51 am: Schmidt is not really answering, except to say Google is not perfect.

“We don’t know how to do it with more certainty,” he says, which is odd for a company that is perhaps the most irksomely certain group of geeks ever assembled on the planet.

Klobuchar moves to copyright issues. “There’s a real problem here,” agrees Schmidt.

Yes, and some media companies think Google is the problem and has not done enough to fix the problem.

“It’s difficult,” says Schmidt. Well, isn’t Google smartier?

“We’re under great pressure to resolve this,” he says.

11:55 am: Klobuchar is still worried about the small businesses, but she wants Google to come to Duluth.

Good lord, it’s a shakedown in plain sight. Maybe Google isn’t the scary one here! These pols seem pretty frightening.

Now Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley is saying he will attend some Google event in his state.

Of course!

Grassley makes a wishy-wishy statement, and we get to hear from Iowans on both sides.

Some are apparently concerned that Google is a troublemaker and some aren’t.

Iowans, like a lot of folks, are torn.

“We are happy to be judged,” says Schmidt.

12:00 pm: Now it is time for Sen. Al Franken from Minnesota.

“First let me say, I love Google,” he says.

Otay. I wonder if Franken knows that Google is a giant scary computer.

But, as a citizen of San Francisco, I say he should love whoever he wants!

Franken is also concerned about his love’s behavior and is taken aback by one of Schmidt’s previous answers.

It’s that irksome Marissa Mayer quote again.

When asked if the algo was unbiased, Schmidt apparently was not as sure as shootin’!

Now, it is onto Yelp and the fiery quotes from Stoppelman about how Google nefariously blocks the review site’s content.

Eric “generally” disagrees with Jeremy.

At one point Google tried to buy Yelp, so this is a fraught situation.

Does Franken know about the previous Google-Yelp hookup?

Drama!

Schmidt says it is Yelp’s fault for asking to be removed from the algo. Actually, Yelp only asked Google to stop jacking its fare.

12:11 pm: Oh noz, another pol? This time Sen. Richard Blumenthal from Connecticut.

He is super-smiley, while calling Google a “behemoth.” I like that word a lot and use it for the company often, although I always like to use a qualifier like “thuggish” or “freaky.”

Back to the blabby Blumenthal, who cannot seem to get out a question.

Wait! He asks if Google can suggest some fixes to “avoid government regulation.”

I. Kid. You. Not.

12:21 pm: Kohl is back and giving Google a little more slap-a-doo.

I like the whole Kohl thang of looking over his glasses down at Schmidt.

He asks: Should we trust Google? Should we?

In my opinion: If your mother says she loves you, you should check it.

So, no!

Schmidt assures him: “We make mistakes.”

Lee is then back, asking if Google gives preference to its own products in search?

Exactly the point and a question that is still not answered properly.

12:24 pm: Lee remains troubled by Schmidt’s testimony.

He uses terms like “leverage its natural dominance” and “significant market share to disadvantage” competitors.

Sounds like, um, Microsoft. And then it is back to that niggling Marissa Mayer quote. (Memo to the voluble exec, who apparently never met a microphone she didn’t want to talk into: You might want to take a day off today at the Googleplex.)

Google-luvin’ Franken is back and he is asking about mobile search.

Where Google is dominant again! (Jellllllo, Al, we in Silicon Valley know that one already!)

He asks if all Android devices come pre-loaded with Google products. Schmidt thinks two-thirds come with it, but handset makers can choose.

12:31 pm: Back to all-smiles Blumenthal, who says he has come to no conclusion.

But lo! He is not as silly as he seems and goes into an interesting racetrack analogy about how Google owns the track and now has horses and now those horses are winning.

Hmmmm…

Schmidt disagrees, natch!

He thinks the Internet is the platform and Google is the GPS.

Metaphor contest!

I think Google is a big tasty banana cream pie we can’t stop eating, although we know it’s bad for us.

That or an alien wearing an expensive suit who will soon eat us all.

Franken comes in with a doping horses joke. Remember when he was funny on “Saturday Night Live”?

Me neither.

It goes on without a lot of really good discussion. Klobuchar asks something, but I forget it immediately. My bad!

She has a last question about advertisers and privacy. Softball!

Let me write this for Schmidt before he inevitably spits it out: Of course, Google wants to protect privacy.

12:37 pm: Finally, the second panel of critics. Sadly, I must go to an appointment in Silicon Valley to visit one of its rapacious companies.

Oops, I meant ee-no-vative.

But, no worries, John Paczkowski will take over from here once it gets going again after the break.

12:47 pm: The panel’s back in session. The first critic to take a shot at Google, Thomas Barnett, a lawyer for Expedia.

12:51 pm: Riffing on Schmidt’s earlier “We know, we get it” comment, Barnett argues the opposite.

“Google doesn’t get it,” he says, adding that the company’s ever-expanding market power is troubling.

12:54 pm: Google is a monopoly, Barnett continues, and it has a duty not to abuse that position. He concludes by saying antitrust enforcement can and should play a role in maintaining competition in the markets in which it does business.

12:57 pm: Moving on now to Nextag CEO Katz, who has some tough words for the search giant. “Today Google doesn’t play fair,” he says.

He argues that Google rigs its results to drive consumers to Google Product Search when they search for information to inform their purchases.

1:00 pm: Next: Stoppelman of Yelp, who wonders if it’s even possible to create a company like Yelp today because of Google’s massive market power.

1:04 pm: Google’s outside lawyer, Susan Creighton, takes the mic next. Having trouble with the video stream from the Senate, but as best I can tell she talked broadly about the competitive landscape and reiterated Schmidt’s “competition is just a click away” narrative.

1:08 pm: She concludes by saying government oversight of Google’s search results rankings would put the company at a disadvantage and turn its search service into something akin to a “regulated utility.”

1:09 pm: Interesting. Creighton says she doesn’t believe Google has monopoly power.

1:10 pm: “Each of you right now can test whether or not you like Google’s search results and if you don’t like them it’s free and instantaneous to try someone else.”

1:22 pm: Apologies, the Senate video feed has gone from bad to worse.

1:23 pm: Franken asks Yelp’s Stoppelman and Nextag’s Katz if they could start their companies today given Google’s market power.

Both say that’s unlikely.

1:26 pm: Terse exchange between Franken and Creighton about whether Google paid Apple to be the default search engine on its iOS devices. Lots of back and forth, but Creighton finally concedes that there’s some sort of financial deal between the two companies.

1:39 pm: Sen. Lee asks what Google might do to “level the playing field.” Stoppelman suggests separating search from its other properties. Pipe dream.

1:40 pm: Well, it looks like it may be getting near the end of the session, which is a good thing because we get it to by now.

And that is: Nothing significant is going to get said here.

In a letter to the Federal Communications Commission and attorney general Tuesday, Franken said the deal would lead to “an effective duopoly” in the national wireless market and inevitably lead to both higher prices and job losses.

“My examination of this transaction has led me to conclude that AT&T’s acquisition of T-Mobile would substantially lessen competition in the already highly concentrated wireless communications market,” Franken said in the filing. “In addition to my antitrust concerns, I am convinced that this type of horizontal consolidation does not serve the public interest.”

Franken’s objections follow that of Wisconsin Democrat Herb Kohl, who went public with his opposition to the deal last week.

The deal needs the blessing of both the FCC and the Department of Justice. Sprint has vocally opposed the deal, along with a handful of public interest groups and smaller carriers, while AT&T has won backing from a number of high-tech firms, labor groups and others. AT&T said in its earnings call last week that it remains confident it will win approval for the deal.

“I have concluded that this acquisition, if permitted to proceed, would likely cause substantial harm to competition and consumers, would be contrary to antitrust law and not in the public interest, and therefore should be blocked by your agencies,” U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl (D., Wis.), said in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.

Sen. Kohl, who heads a Senate subcommittee that examines antitrust issues, held a hearing on the proposed merger in May. Executives for AT&T and T-Mobile appeared before the subcommittee and defended the deal as good for consumers.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

This isn’t the first time Kohl has raised concerns about the long-term implications of Yahoo’s (YHOO) proposed deal with Google (GOOG). And it almost certainly won’t be the last. Back in September, he worried aloud that the partnership might reduce Yahoo to “nothing more than the newest satellite in the Google orbit.” And nothing much has changed since that time, except for Google’s increased advocacy of the deal on the new “Yahoo-Google Facts” site.

This isn’t the first time Kohl has raised concerns about the long-term implications of Yahoo’s (YHOO) proposed deal with Google (GOOG). And it almost certainly won’t be the last. Back in September, he worried aloud that the partnership might reduce Yahoo to “nothing more than the newest satellite in the Google orbit.” And nothing much has changed since that time, except for Google’s increased advocacy of the deal on the new “Yahoo-Google Facts” site.

When Google and Yahoo announced their advertising partnership back in June, the companies said they would give the Justice Department three and one half months to review it. Which is more than enough time for such a review according to Google (GOOG) CEO Eric Schmidt, who said the companies will proceed with the deal in October, regardless of what federal regulators think of it. “Time is money in our business,” Schmidt told reporters Wednesday.”… While we have been talking to regulators, we don’t know what their position is. We don’t know if they think it’s a good deal or poor deal.”

Not that it particularly matters what they think, because Google has no intention of delaying the partnership anyway.

And for those like Sen. Herb Kohl who worry if the deal might reduce Yahoo (YHOO) to “nothing more than the newest satellite in the Google orbit”? Well, c’mon. Yahoo is already a satellite in the Google orbit, isn’t it? Google accounted for 77.4 percent of all search engine spending in the second quarter of 2008, according to Efficient Frontier. For crying out loud, the company claims $1.10 of every new search dollar.

And time is money in Google’s business. …

Yesterday, BoomTown went to Washington, D.C. to see lawyers from Microsoft (MSFT), Yahoo and Google face off in Senate hearings about the controversial search advertising outsourcing deal recently struck between Yahoo (YHOO) and Google (GOOG).

Titled “The Google-Yahoo Agreement and the Future of Internet Advertising,” the hearings were called by the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights and chaired by Sen. Herb Kohl (D., Wis.).

As I expected, the hearings on the Yahoo agreement with Google (transcripts of testimonies here) to outsource some of its ad search business were a lot of show and not so much content.

There was also a hearing for the House’s Task Force on Competition Policy and Antitrust Laws, called “Competition on the Internet,” which featured the same trio of execs.

And here’s a video of BoomTown chatting up Google’s Chief Legal Officer David Drummond, Microsoft’s General Counsel Brad Smith and Michael Callahan, general counsel for Yahoo, right after the Senate hearings were over.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Sitting at the Senate hearings about the Yahoo-Google ad search deal this morning in Washington, D.C., let it be said that BoomTown is deeply dubious about whether it is a good thing for consumers and advertisers, as both Internet companies have asserted.

But this was my most certain conclusion:

The worst-case scenario is actually for politicians to meddle in the Internet space with their largely Web-ignorant mitts.

But that’s just me!

Titled “The Google-Yahoo Agreement and the Future of Internet Advertising,” the hearings were called by the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, chaired by Sen. Herb Kohl (D., Wis.).

In any case and as usual, the hearings on the Yahoo agreement with Google (transcripts of testimonies here) to outsource some of its ad search business were a lot of show and not so much content.

There was an interesting little testy back-and-forth between Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.) over remarks that Yahoo (YHOO) CEO Jerry Yang might have made in a previous meeting with Microsoft (MSFT) that was recounted by Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith.

The gist of it was that Yang sketched out a world of two “poles”–Google (GOOG) on one side and Microsoft and Yahoo on the other. And if Yahoo moved over to the Google side, the World Wide Web would be terribly askew!

Yahoo General Counsel Michael Callahan said that was not his recollection of the meeting, in which he also participated.

Specter wondered who was telling the truth, which only made me want to yell out: Welcome to the MicroHoo Hall of Crazy Mirrors, Senator!

Mostly, Google and Yahoo argued that by doing an ad-search partnership they would stay aggressively competitive with each other.

Microsoft, of course, argued that the end was nigh.

“Never before in the history of advertising has one company been in the position to control prices on up to 90 percent of advertising in a single medium,” said Microsoft’s Smith. “Not in television, not in radio, not in publishing. It should not happen on the Internet.”

Countered Yahoo’s Callahan: “The purpose of this commercial arrangement, the intent of Yahoo moving forward, is to make our company an even stronger competitor to Google, to Microsoft and to others in the dynamic and rapidly growing online advertising world.”

Of course, Google chimed in, via Google Chief Legal Officer David Drummond: “Google and Yahoo will remain vigorous competitors, and that competition will help fuel innovation that is good for users and the economy.”

Yes, concentration of power is always good for the world! I mean, Microsoft’s Windows monopoly turned out so well for the industry for so long!

Wait, that’s not a very political thing to say. (Then again, I completely forgot just how stuffy D.C. was and wore Silicon Valley garb–jeans and a T-shirt–to the hearing.)

In any case, the sideshow to the MicroHoo drama moves to the House side of Capitol Hill this afternoon.

There the Task Force on Competition Policy and Antitrust Laws held the less dramatically named hearing “Competition on the Internet.”

It was the same trio of Yahoo, Microsoft and Google lawyers, of course, and more of the same.

Which is to say–a lot of hot air, little movement, but much more evidence of the next phase of the Internet and the two true poles: The Web World War of Microsoft versus Google.

In any case and speaking of hot air, here’s my video interview with the lawyers from Google, Yahoo and Microsoft, which is also posted here:

A reassuring profession of altruism, but one that the Justice Department isn’t buying. The agency has opened a formal antitrust investigation into the deal and will soon begin issuing civil investigative demands to the companies’ competitors, customers and potential partners in the hopes of determining whether it will further tighten Google’s near-monopoly grip on the search advertising market. “This is a complicated situation, but one of the key questions is very simple,” said David Balto, an antitrust lawyer who was competition policy director at the Federal Trade Commission during the Clinton administration. “What is Yahoo’s incentive to continue to compete?”

Good question.

Helpfully, Google and Yahoo have already agreed to delay implementing their new alliance for three and a half months so the DOJ can answer it.

Yet that’s exactly how Jerry Yang marked his one-year anniversary as CEO of Yahoo (YHOO). Yesterday Yang paid a visit to Capitol Hill in the hopes of tempering antitrust concerns over the Internet company’s proposed search-advertising pact with rival Google (GOOG).

During his one-day visit, Yang met with Sen. Herb Kohl (D., Wisc.), who chairs the antitrust subcommittee and has raised concerns about the long-term implications of Yahoo’s proposed deal with Google. Yahoo maintains its venture with Google won’t have an anticompetitive impact on the online-search market because it involves only a portion of Yahoo’s search business. But others (read: Microsoft [MSFT]) disagree and argue it’s the beginning of a process that will end with Yahoo outsourcing all of that business to Google and consolidating, oh say … 90% of the search-advertising market in the search sovereign’s hands.

“On the surface, it may be a compelling argument,” Rebecca Arbogast, an analyst at Stifel Nicolaus, said of Yahoo’s claim that the deal is benign. But she added: “Over time, what this is doing is setting up a trajectory where [advertisers] move over to Google and they become the only game in town.”

“The implications of this [deal] for the Internet advertising market–and for the Internet as a whole–are profound and potentially far reaching,” the Senators wrote. “A core part of Google’s business is placing contextual advertising–that is, text-based ads placed on third-party Web sites which are relevant to the content or to the likely reader of the Web site. Google has a dominant market position with respect to the placing of these contextual ads. DoubleClick has a leading market position in placing another form of Internet advertising–display advertising which also resides on third-party Web sites. Industry experts that we spoke to in the course of our inquiry raised serious concerns that combining these two companies’ leading positions in these two forms of Internet advertising could cause significant harm to competition in the Internet advertising marketplace.”

The acquisition is potentially problematic for reasons of privacy as well. “DoubleClick collects an enormous quantity of information on individual Web users’ preferences, and privacy advocates have expressed very serious concerns regarding the consequences of this data coming under the control of Google due to the fact that Google is the dominant Internet search engine and can also track individuals’ search requests,” the senators note. “Therefore, we believe that this deal raises fundamental consumer privacy concerns worthy of serious scrutiny.”

The senators’ arguments echo ones we’ve heard before–from the European Union and Microsoft, and from the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the Center for Digital Democracy and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. Though, as Danny Sullivan notes over at Search Engine Land, they’re a tad bit more hysterical. Certainly, Microsoft’s $6 billion purchase of digital-ad firm aQuantive suggests the barriers to entry in the Internet advertising marketplace aren’t more than knee high. And as for privacy, well, Sun chairman Scott McNealy once said: “You have no privacy, get over it.”