Eric Schmidt (left) with Alan Davidson and an unidentified mime

“It’s been a remarkable experience — and a very exciting and intense time — but I’m ready for a new challenge,” Davidson said in an email to colleagues. “After six and a half years, I’ve decided it’s the right moment for me to leave my current role at the company. Starting later this month, I will be taking a sabbatical to explore other opportunities.”

Davidson’s departure is a bit of a surprise, and a real blow to Google. He was the company’s first full-time lobbyist in Washington and the guy who established its presence in the Beltway. He’s leaving at a time when Google is mired in all sorts of regulatory issues and facing increased scrutiny of its operations. So the company is understandably scrambling to replace him. Sources say it’s hoping to replace Davidson with a former member of Congress in an effort to further bolster its Capitol clout.

Sounds like exactly the sort of lobbyist that company chairman Eric Schmidt described in this October interview with the Washington Post.

“The conclusion that we came to [as far back as when I was at Sun Microsystems] is that there are two kinds of lobbying,” Schmidt said. “And this, I think, is grossly unfair but kind of true. There’s the kind of lobbying where you pay an ex-senator to get the current senator to write a sentence into a bill, and there’s no confusion as to what this is about. You are representing your corporate interest. It’s specific to your company. In Washington, for example, you can pay an ex-person $50,000 to arrange a meeting to get that process, to get those five sentences written in this bill, and so forth and so on.”

Davidson’s email in full, below:

From: Alan Davidson
Date: Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 4:35 PM
Subject: Time for a new challenge
To: Alan Davidson

In 2005, I joined Google in Washington to build a first-rate Internet
policy group. It’s been a remarkable experience – and a very exciting
and intense time — but I’m ready for a new challenge. After six and
half years, I’ve decided it’s the right moment for me to leave my
current role at the company. Starting later this month, I will be
taking a sabbatical to explore other opportunities.

When I started at Google none of us really knew how the Internet, and
this company, would grow and change. The mobile, cloud, and social
technologies just taking hold then are now full-on revolutions today.
At Google, we’ve grown from one person in shared rental space (me!) to
a large regional team with a flagship office in DC. I am intensely
proud of the team we have built throughout the Americas, and the work
we have done.

When we started the office, I knew that we couldn’t affect the major
policy debates of the day alone. It has only been in partnership with
so many of you that we have been able to make progress on many of the
great issues affecting the Internet. As we seek to fill my role, Pablo
Chavez will continue to be a good point of contact in our ongoing work
together. Thank you.

With best regards,
Alan

Mr. Powell is joining the cable industry’s trade association from Providence Equity Partners, where he was a senior advisor, and Broadband for America, an industry group which pressed for less regulation on Internet lines. He was chairman of the Federal Communications Commission until January 2005.

He replaces former National Cable & Telecommunications Association president Kyle McSlarrow, who said last week that he’ll be joining Comcast Corp.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

And buying some new ones as well.

The company spent $5.16 million trying to influence policy in Washington, according to the Lobbying Disclosure Act Database.

That’s 28 percent more than the $4.03 million it spent last year, but then Google’s interests on Capitol Hill these days are quite a bit more extensive than they once were. Where once there were competition and privacy issues and little else, there are now privacy, data security, patent reform, copyright, renewable energy and tax reform issues, among other things.

Oh. And rivals with differing interests and bigger lobbying spends. Microsoft, for example, which ended the year with a $6.91 million lobbying spend to Google’s $5.16 million.

PREVIOUSLY:

• What Tech Companies Are Spending in Washington

Among the many Gmail subscribers to have their private contacts exposed in the Google Buzz privacy fiasco was Andrew McLaughlin, the Obama administration’s deputy chief technology officer and Google’s former head of global public policy.

“So I see a big default privacy flaw in Buzz,” McLaughlin wrote in a Feb. 10 Buzz post uncovered by Breitbart’s Big Government (click on image below to enlarge). “By default, Buzz adds the people you e-mail most as your ‘followers’, and then lists them on your public Google Profile Page. In other words, Google exposes the people you e-mail most, by default, to the world. That violates my sense of expectations–I expect the list of people I e-mail most to be kept private. What should I do? I guess I don’t really have an option other than turning off Buzz. Any other ideas?”

Sure. Here’s one: How about no longer using your former employer’s email service to communicate privately with the folks you once worked with as a lobbyist for Google?
Certainly seems unwise given the mandate of the Presidential Records Act of 1978.

[Buzz image credit: Breitbart's Big Government]

Finally, after much advance leakage, the Federal Communications Commission will unveil its National Broadband Plan on Tuesday, March 16.

The two key questions about the effort to get the United States up to speed, so to speak, with decent digital access: Will it be toothless or not and will there be any money to pay for it, given the cash-strapped federal government?

A possible highlight of the plan concerns whether spectrum should be allocated for a free or inexpensive high-speed wireless service. It was a notion mentioned by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski at a meeting in Washington, D.C., earlier this week.

This is not an idea that telecom providers have warmed to in the past, of course, since they so enjoy sticking it to consumers with spotty service and high prices.

And if the report proposes the restoration of some regulations lifted in the previous Republican administration, you can be sure the Prada-wearing political lobbyist brigade will be at the ready.

What the FCC opus will surely point out is the obvious: The U.S. needs high-speed access to improve dramatically across the nation, especially for poorer citizens and in rural areas.

As BoomTown and many others have pointed out many times, our high prices and low speed make the U.S. the laughingstock of the digital world.

And the federal government’s lack of attention to the one innovative arena this nation shines in–tech–is appalling.

The plan will be the first big move by Genachowski, the longtime Internet exec who will appear as a speaker at the eighth D: All Things Digital conference in June.

One certainty about the latest plan: It will be a long document of hundreds of pages, so save some trees and get it online here at the aptly named Reboot.FCC.gov site.

In fact, the FCC open commission meeting, where the plan is being unveiled at 10:30 am ET on March 16, will be streaming live on the Web at the site.

A recent FCC report noted that two-thirds of consumers in the U.S. have some sort of broadband connection. On average, they pay $41 for this sometimes dubious privilege.

Incredibly, six percent of Americans still use dial-up access and four percent have no broadband at home at all.

Not surprisingly, poor people access the Web a lot less, although longtime gaps among races are closing, with African-Americans and Hispanics gaining in access and usage.

So whatever the FCC proposes, at least it will shine a light on this critical issue.

And a new plan is better than none at all–I think–so let’s see what’s what on Tuesday.

Last week, BoomTown translated an opinion piece written by Google CEO Eric Schmidt and published in The Wall Street Journal that focused on defending the search giant from criticism that it was, well, killing journalism.

One of the louder critics, in fact, has been Rupert Murdoch, chairman and CEO of News Corp. (NWS), who has been loaded for bear in regard to Google (GOOG), leveling a series of high-profile verbal attacks on the company.

Last week, Murdoch published his own piece in The Journal, which he owns (along with this Web site), on the topic of the wrenching changes in the news business and in which he never mentioned Google by name.

But the company was there anyway, so, in the interests of equal opportunity balloon-pricking, I must also render Murdoch’s post through my decoding machine, because it’s only sporting!

His op-ed, The Journal noted, “has been adapted from his Dec. 1 remarks before the Federal Trade Commission’s workshop on journalism and the Internet.”

What Murdoch wrote: Journalism and Freedom

By RUPERT MURDOCH

Translation: Crikey, as they say in Australia, I have been getting a little wobbly over Google’s growing power, but those bludgers in government will always make me go more troppo.

And, unlike Eric Schmidt, I didn’t need to be called Emperor Palpatine to scare people. Plain old “Rupe” works just fine to give most people the shakes.

What Murdoch wrote: We are at a time when many news enterprises are shutting down or scaling back. No doubt you will hear some tell you that journalism is in dire shape, and the triumph of digital is to blame.

My message is just the opposite. The future of journalism is more promising than ever–limited only by editors and producers unwilling to fight for their readers and viewers, or government using its heavy hand either to overregulate or subsidize us.

Translation: Please try to ignore the salient fact that it was actually Rupert Murdoch–me!–who has been loudly clanging the bell of late about how Google is laying waste to journalism, much as Sean Hannity did to that poor Alan Colmes nightly for a dozen years.

Also, please ignore that I am saying my message is just the opposite, because–really–I hate government more than I hate Google, so this makes perfect sense if you really think about it.

But don’t think about it, mate!

Murdoch wrote: From the beginning, newspapers have prospered for one reason: The trust that comes from representing their readers’ interests and giving them the news that’s important to them. That means covering the communities where they live, exposing government or business corruption, and standing up to the rich and powerful.

Does this mean we are all going to succeed? Of course not. Some newspapers and news organizations will not adapt to the digital realities of our day–and they will fail. We should not blame technology for these failures. The future of journalism belongs to the bold, and the companies that prosper will be those that find new and better ways to meet the needs of their viewers, listeners, and readers.

Translation: Teri: Cue the speech about what journalism means for the little people! But also make sure we get in how News Corp. gets all this digital hoo-ha too and how we are not going to let those pointy-heads of Silicon Valley think we are not ready to rumble!

What Murdoch wrote: First, media companies need to give people the news they want. I can’t tell you how many papers I have visited where they have a wall of journalism prizes–and a rapidly declining circulation. This tells me the editors are producing news for themselves–instead of news that is relevant to their customers. A news organization’s most important asset is the trust it has with its readers, a bond that reflects the readers’ confidence that editors are looking out for their needs and interests.

Translation: There was a trophy cabinet and award wall just like that at The Wall Street Journal before I bought it. I ate it it for breakfast.

What Murdoch wrote: At News Corp., we have been working for two years on a project that would use a portion of our broadcast spectrum to bring our TV offerings–and maybe even our newspaper content–to mobile devices. Today’s news consumers do not want to be chained to a box in their homes or offices to get their favorite news and entertainment–and our plan includes the needs of the next wave of TV viewing by going mobile.

The same is true with newspapers. More and more, our readers are using different technologies to access our papers during different parts of the day. For example, they might read some of their Wall Street Journal on their BlackBerries while commuting into the office, read it on the computer when they arrive, and read it on a larger and clearer e-reader wherever they may be.

Translation: Teri: Tell Jon Miller to get on a plane stat and start chit-chatting with those Asian manufacturers asap. I am not going to let Amazon (AMZN) head Jeff Bezos guffaw me into oblivion with his Kindle or have “American Idol” get hijacked by Apple (AAPL) or have those Google (GOOG) twins shine me on, even as they are developing some magic mobile phone.

What Murdoch wrote: My second point follows from my first: Quality content is not free. In the future, good journalism will depend on the ability of a news organization to attract customers by providing news and information they are willing to pay for.

That’s not going to change, even in a boom. The reason is that the old model was founded on quasimonopolies, such as classified advertising, which has been decimated by new and cheaper competitors such as Craigslist, Monster.com, and so on.

Translation: My second point follows from the first: We can’t charge for milk when we have been giving away the cow for free.

And, frankly, the old media have been lending out Bessie to every Web site that comes looking for a gallon, free of charge, in abject fear that no one likes milk anymore.

In the good old days, when we were the only beverage around–I like to call it a “quasiMOOnopoly”–we could set any price we wanted.

Now, unfortunately, everybody’s got milk.

What Murdoch wrote: In the new business model, we will be charging consumers for the news we provide on our Internet sites. The critics say people won’t pay. I believe they will, but only if we give them something of good and useful value. Our customers are smart enough to know that you don’t get something for nothing.

Translation: People will pay, once we de-index our sites from Google and they can’t get their daily dose of the New York Post’s Page Six for free. Where else will they get the latest online tidbits on the Tiger Woods scandal, for example?

Okay, from everywhere. But Page Six names at least 46 percent more mistresses than TMZ, and that’s worth something.

What Murdoch wrote: That goes for some of our friends online too. And yet there are those who think they have a right to take our news content and use it for their own purposes without contributing a penny to its production. Some rewrite, at times without attribution, the news stories of expensive and distinguished journalists who invested days, weeks or even months in their stories–all under the tattered veil of “fair use.”

Right now, content creators bear all the costs, while aggregators enjoy many of the benefits. In the long term, this is untenable. We are open to different pay models. But the principle is clear: To paraphrase a famous economist, there’s no such thing as a free news story, and we are going to ensure that we get a fair but modest price for the value we provide.

Translation: By “friends,” I mean “sworn enemies,” also known as “Google.” (Until it meets with me to do a deal and then it is “friends” again.)

By “tattered veil of ‘fair use,’” I mean “the law I am going to get gutted by my 1,473 lobbyists in Washington, D.C.”

By “to be impolite, it’s theft,” I mean “to be impolite, it’s theft by Larry and Sergey.” (Until they meet with me to do a deal and fork over the moolah, and then it will be a “business arrangement.”)

By “there’s no such thing as a free news story,” I mean “I hope to trick those Google-obsessed Bing boys at Microsoft (MSFT) into paying me that boatload of money they aren’t sending Carol Bartz of Yahoo (YHOO).”

What Murdoch wrote: Finally, a few words about government. In the last two or three decades, we have seen the emergence of new platforms and opportunities that no one could have predicted–from social networking sites and iPhones and BlackBerries, to Internet sites for newspapers, radio and television. And we are only at the beginning.

These developments mean increased competition, and that is good for consumers. But just as businesses are adapting to new realities, the government needs to adapt too. In this new and more globally competitive news world, restricting cross-ownership between television and newspapers makes as little sense as would banning newspapers from having Web sites.

Translation: Oh, I do not like Silicon Valley, but I dislike government even more!

And now that Google is its bogeyman instead of me, I really hope to finally be able to gut all those annoying cross-ownership rules that prevented me from owning the entire media landscape of every major city in America.

This must be done immediately, because those icons on people’s cellphones–especially that dangerous iFart app–are poised for attack!

What Murdoch wrote: In my view, the growing drumbeat for government assistance for newspapers is as alarming as overregulation. One idea gaining in popularity is providing taxpayer funds for journalists. Or giving newspapers “nonprofit” status–in exchange, of course, for papers giving up their right to endorse political candidates. The most damning problem with government “help” is what we saw with the bailout of the U.S. auto industry: Help props up those who are producing things that customers do not want.

The prospect of the U.S. government becoming directly involved in commercial journalism ought to be chilling for anyone who cares about freedom of speech. The Founding Fathers knew that the key to independence was to allow enterprises to prosper and serve as a counterweight to government power. It is precisely because newspapers make profits and do not depend on the government for their livelihood that they have the resources and wherewithal to hold the government accountable.

Translation: You bailin’ out me? You bailin’ out me? You bailin’ out me? Then who the hell else are you bailin’ out? You bailin’ out me? Well I’m the only one here. Who the %*#! do you think you’re bailin’ out?”

What Murdoch wrote: When the representatives of 13 former British colonies established a new order for the ages, they built it on a sturdy foundation: a free and informed citizenry. They understood that an informed citizenry requires news that is independent from government. That is one reason they put the First Amendment first.

Translation: Teri: Please insert the clarion cry of the First Amendment here, as it always stirs the heartstrings.

What Murdoch wrote: Our modern world is faster moving and far more complex than theirs. But the basic truth remains: To make informed decisions, free men and women require honest and reliable news about events affecting their countries and their lives. Whether the newspaper of the future is delivered with electrons or dead trees is ultimately not that important. What is most important is that the news industry remains free, independent–and competitive.

Translation: Believe me, if we could push a button and get rid of the whole Internet, News Corp. and Time Warner (TWX) and Viacom (VIA) and CBS (CBS) and the whole lot of us old media players would.

Barring that, whether the newspaper of the future is delivered with electrons or dead trees is ultimately not that important.

What is most important is that the news industry shake down big piles of dough from those Silicon Valley moneybags–whether they be Google or that Mark Zuckerberg kid, whenever Facebook goes public, or those Twitter dudes (if they figure out a way to make any money outside of fund raising)–in order to remain free, independent–and competitive.

It is, after all, the American way.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the social networking site has a very small staff–just a trio of on-the-young-side dudes–battening down the hatches from a funky office in a funky section of D.C., Dupont Circle, far from the tonier and lobbyist-rich K Street corridor.

In contrast, both Microsoft (MSFT) and Google (GOOG) have a massive D.C. presence, trying to influence policy.

Still, as many in government know–such as Sarah Palin this week–Facebook has become a key tool in the basic bag of political tricks, used for organizing, canvassing, communicating and, every now and then, inspiring.

But there is also a raft of thorny legislative issues for Facebook, especially related to privacy, an arena where the company has repeatedly shot itself in the foot (Beacon! TOS!).

The company’s relatively new D.C. staff will presumably be a little smoother going forward.

They include:

Director of Public Policy Tim Sparapani, most recently with the American Civil Liberties Union, who joined in the spring.

Adam Conner, who opened Facebook’s D.C. office and who worked for some pols when he was still a college student, showing them how to use social media.

And, most recently, joining as manager of public policy communications, Andrew Noyes, a former reporter for the National Journal (and the man in 17D who pinged me on a Virgin America flight last week to meet him and the other Facebook policy wonks).

Here’s a video of the interview, in which we discuss all the big issues, from privacy to data retention to how Washington’s view of tech still has not evolved much:

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20091117/kara-visits-facebooks-washington-d-c-office-and-talks-policy/feed/ 2 http://allthingsd.com/20090828/the-weekly-screw-google-meeting-its-between-the-f-linux-luncheon-and-the-destroy-apple-social/ http://allthingsd.com/20090828/the-weekly-screw-google-meeting-its-between-the-f-linux-luncheon-and-the-destroy-apple-social/#comments Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:19:50 +0000 John Paczkowski http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=23907 Get this: Microsoft has been holding secret “Screw Google” meetings in Washington where it schemes to undermine Google and prevent the company from subsuming the businesses that took it decades to build. “Microsoft is at the center of a group of companies who see Google as a threat to them in some combination of business and policy,” a source familiar with the matter told DailyFinance. “The effort is designed to make Google look like the big high-tech bad guy here.”

Those ruthless, conniving bastards. Strategizing to thwart a rival.

I’m sure nothing of this sort goes on over at Google (GOOG), where everything is altruism and Segways and don’t-be-evil happy rainbows. Surely, the lobbyists Google employs are working exclusively to advance the company’s mission of organizing the world’s information and making it universally accessible and useful. They’d never do anything untoward like conspire to protect Google’s interests from a competitor. They’d never, for example, draft an antitrust complaint to the Justice Department that forced Microsoft (MSFT) to make changes to its new Vista operating system.

Please. This is business is usual. And if Google’s lobbyists aren’t holding a weekly “Screw Microsoft” meeting or some variation on that, then Google should get some new lobbyists.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090828/the-weekly-screw-google-meeting-its-between-the-f-linux-luncheon-and-the-destroy-apple-social/feed/ 1 http://allthingsd.com/20090828/the-weekly-screw-google-meeting-its-between-the-f-linux-luncheon-and-the-destroy-apple-social-2/ http://allthingsd.com/20090828/the-weekly-screw-google-meeting-its-between-the-f-linux-luncheon-and-the-destroy-apple-social-2/#comments Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:19:50 +0000 John Paczkowski http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=23907 Get this: Microsoft has been holding secret “Screw Google” meetings in Washington where it schemes to undermine Google and prevent the company from subsuming the businesses that took it decades to build. “Microsoft is at the center of a group of companies who see Google as a threat to them in some combination of business and policy,” a source familiar with the matter told DailyFinance. “The effort is designed to make Google look like the big high-tech bad guy here.”

Those ruthless, conniving bastards. Strategizing to thwart a rival.

I’m sure nothing of this sort goes on over at Google (GOOG), where everything is altruism and Segways and don’t-be-evil happy rainbows. Surely, the lobbyists Google employs are working exclusively to advance the company’s mission of organizing the world’s information and making it universally accessible and useful. They’d never do anything untoward like conspire to protect Google’s interests from a competitor. They’d never, for example, draft an antitrust complaint to the Justice Department that forced Microsoft (MSFT) to make changes to its new Vista operating system.

Please. This is business is usual. And if Google’s lobbyists aren’t holding a weekly “Screw Microsoft” meeting or some variation on that, then Google should get some new lobbyists.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090828/the-weekly-screw-google-meeting-its-between-the-f-linux-luncheon-and-the-destroy-apple-social-2/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090428/fellowship-of-the-pings/ http://allthingsd.com/20090428/fellowship-of-the-pings/#comments Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:55:33 +0000 John Paczkowski http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=16492 Back in 2005, Google was represented in Washington by a lone staffer–Alan Davidson, a telecom attorney who once served as associate director of the Center for Democracy and Technology. The company’s political innocence was something of a joke among seasoned beltway players and it didn’t seem to care. Google (GOOG) was far too busy organizing the world’s information to pay much attention to Washington.

How quickly things changed. By 2007, Davidson had been joined by 11 other lobbyists, among them a former high-ranking Justice Department antitrust lawyer. And now, two years later, Google CEO Eric Schmidt has been named by President Obama to his Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. In that role he’ll work with a group of distinguished academics and executives–a group that, incidentally, includes Craig Mundie, chief research and strategy officer at Microsoft (MSFT)–to help the administration “formulate policy in the many areas where understanding of science, technology, and innovation is key to strengthening our economy and forming policy that works for the American people.”

Schmidt’s appointment isn’t all that surprising. He served as an informal adviser to Obama during his campaign and he’s a smart guy who’s got some strong opinions about network neutrality, next-generation broadband, and intellectual property–issues that figure high on the president’s tech agenda. Still, it’s one more indication–and the biggest one yet–that Google has become firmly part of the Washington establishment.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090428/fellowship-of-the-pings/feed/ 1 http://allthingsd.com/20080930/told-you-those-lobbyists-would-come-in-handy-sergey/ http://allthingsd.com/20080930/told-you-those-lobbyists-would-come-in-handy-sergey/#comments Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:27:45 +0000 John Paczkowski http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=6084 “I’ve never seen a tech company ramp up faster than they have in the last year or two,” tech lobbyist Ralph Hellmann said of Google last year. “They’re using all the tools in the lobbying tool kit.” And with some success, it would seem. With the Department of Justice reviewing the company’s proposed online advertising partnership with Yahoo and critics growing increasingly vocal, Google has managed to win the support of some California lawmakers. In a letter to the DOJ, a group of 11 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, all Democrats, urged the Department to approve the Google-Yahoo deal. Dated Sept. 26, the letter was signed by Anna Eshoo, Zoe Lofgren, Ellen Tauscher, Sam Farr, Mike Thompson, Mike Honda, Doris Matsui, Jackie Speier, George Miller, Lynn Woolsey, and Barbara Lee.

“We are deeply concerned that the Department of Justice may be considering a preemptive lawsuit to block Yahoo’s nonexclusive online advertising agreement with Google,” the letter says. “If such action were taken, we believe such an unprecedented [lawsuit] would detrimentally affect the online advertising market and electronic commerce. … We believe that robust competition serves the public interest but if the DOJ blocks this agreement we fear that the threat of additional scrutiny may chill future agreements. Similar agreements are commonplace in many industries and standard among Internet companies.”

Well, not exactly, as Norman Hawker of the American Antitrust Institute points out. “Contrary to the letter, similar agreements are not commonplace because industries with this level of concentration are not commonplace,” Hawker said. “If you ignore the economic text when you read the words, you can easily be misled into thinking the agreement is harmless. Read in context, however, the words of the agreement explain how Google could easily acquire Yahoo’s paid-search business.”

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20080930/told-you-those-lobbyists-would-come-in-handy-sergey/feed/ 0