[ NNSquad ] Re: "Google in Washington"

[Brett Glass <nnsquad@brettglass.com>]

  [ My comments are appended -- Lauren ]


At 10:29 PM 1/23/2009, Lauren Weinstein wrote:

> "Google in Washington"
>
> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-google24-2009jan24,0,5572738.story

Unfortunately, Google seems to be the unseen hand behind many 
organizations which have engaged in activism on the subject of 
"network neutrality." The LA Times article only scratches the 
surface and does not document even many of the well known 
relationships that Google has forged as part of its lobbying effort.

For example, at

http://www.publicknowledge.org/images/oib3-20090120.jpg

we see Gigi Sohn, who is quoted in the article and is founder of 
the DC lobbying group Public Knowledge, partying on the night of 
the inauguration with Google lawyer/lobbyist Harry Wingo. (Harry, a 
major driving force behind Google's presence in DC, is a Yale Law 
School graduate who previously served as counsel to the FCC and to 
at least one Congressional committee. Google hired him as a 
lobbyist due to these connections.) PK claims to be a "public 
interest" group. However, Google has dispensed considerable 
largesse to groups like PK, both via direct funding and via 
"in-kind" contributions. (For example, PK will be receiving free 
labor from Google via its "Google Policy Fellowship" program, which 
will send paid interns to work in its offices at no charge to the 
organization.) And those groups have responded, in turn, by 
promoting Google's agenda in DC. Public Knowledge was one of the 
petitioners in the Comcast proceeding at the FCC, and Susan 
Crawford and Kevin Werbach, both members of PK's advisory board, 
have pushed heavily for Google's agenda and for "network 
neutrality" regulation at Congressional hearings, at policy 
conferences, and within the Obama transition team.

Google is likewise a major contributor to the "Center for the 
Internet and Society" at Stanford University, whose Larry Lessig 
(now moving to Harvard) sits on the boards of Public Knowledge and 
Free Press and has been an active promoter of Google's "network 
neutrality" agenda. And Frannie Wellings, the former publicist for 
Free Press (another one of the petitioners in the Comcast 
proceeding which has posted emphatic defenses of Google's business 
practices on its Web sites) recently left the group to become a 
staffer in the office of North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan, which 
has announced that it will originate "network neutrality" 
legislation. So, there are far more Google connections than this 
article lets on. And there are doubtless far more of which I am as yet unaware.

--Brett Glass

  [ I passed this item through since it is representative of many
    notes that I receive, which continually attempt to ascribe evil,
    or at least devious, motives to Google.

    My basic reaction to Brett's note -- assuming for the sake of the
    argument that the activities listed are true -- is SO WHAT?

    Sohn and Wingo were "partying" on inauguration night?  BFD.
    Is this the anti-Google equivalent of Sarah Palin's "palling
    around with terrorists" accusations?  

    Is Google somehow prohibited from establishing contacts in
    Washington, or lobbying within the law?  The continuing efforts
    in these respects by the traditional telecom industry dwarf
    Google's activities, and Big Telecom has been at it for more than
    an order of magnitude longer than Google has existed.  The entire
    structure of U.S. telecom today is a virtually direct result of
    telcom lobbying.  It's completely appropriate for Google to have
    substantial input as well, as we enter critical phases of
    decision making regarding broadband policies.

    Google is likely one of three things:

    a) A near perfect, angelic force for good that can never do wrong
       and will be the savior of mankind

    b) An evil and/or devious power-hungry monster that only pretends
       to care about anything other than their own bottom line

    or

    c) A corporation with an unusually enlightened management/creed
	and a genuine interest in both their bottom line and the
	well-being of society broadly, subject to various forces
	and risks, and possibilities of change in both positive and
	negative directions, as are most firms.

    I doubt that there are very many people who seriously would
    choose (a) for any firm.
    
    There seem to be significant numbers of people, ranging from the
    tin hat conspiracy crowd to competitors to just ordinary folks
    who don't have enough information to make a clear judgement, who
    seem to choose (b).  I think they're wrong.

    As far as I'm concerned, Google falls firmly into (c).  They're
    not perfect, they're not magic, and it's not guaranteed that
    negative things won't happen in the future.  But I have come to
    believe that their intentions are good ones.  Obviously
    intentions are only one facet of a complex picture, but they're
    sure a better foundation than we see with many other firms.

      -- Lauren Weinstein
         NNSquad Moderator ]