And that’s not bad considering the company only spent $770,000 lobbying, compared to AT&T and Verizon’s combined $35 million, if there was ever any wonder why the government seems more willing to listen to the telecoms.

(Did you know that when Superman debuted in comics in 1938, his chief foes were slick Washington lobbyists? Nice to see we’ve progressed.)

What’s even more interesting than that to me is the telecoms’ chief comeback against Net Neutrality arguments was that the cause was well-funded by Internet giants, making it sound like they couldn’t compete financially. Puh-lease!

Seen as the last line of defense against the telecommunications industry’s desire to keep mobile phone subscribers bound in contracts, using select phones, accessing approved websites, downloading approved applications (sounds familiar to the Net Neutrality worries, doesn’t?), Google pledged to bid $4.6 billion on a chunk of the spectrum, but only if all four conditions of openness were met.

This infuriated AT&T, who accused Google of trying to stack the deck in its favor, which is an activity reserved exclusively for AT&T. Google’s proposal, too, could severely affect their business model.

(For a nice explanation of AT&T’s business model, check out Thomas Claburn’s "If AT&T Ran the Highway System." My favorite line: Sales people in AT&T car showrooms would have no idea how the iCar operated.)

But Chairman Martin acquiesced to only two of Google’s stipulations, drafting rules more similar to Cisco’s proposal, unmindful of Cisco’s definite stake in the outcome, which allow consumers to use any device on the network and install applications of their choice.

Verizon got on board with this proposal, as it doesn’t enforce any type of wholesaling requirements, nor does it ensure that providers cannot set controls on what customers can access via wireless devices.

But according to the Washington Post, there may still be hope yet that Google will enter the auction anyway, as the outcome will have a direct impact on its business model (even if the same article flubs a couple of things like the Net Neutrality definition and at what point Google made its offer):

"Google sees network owners as potentially coming between it and its customers, so they realized how critical Washington was to their long-term game plan," said Paul Gallant, a telecom policy analyst with Stanford Group Co.

So maybe, just maybe, there’s still hope that Google, or some Google coalition, will bid in the spectrum auction in early 2008 and create the "third pipe" for some real competition in the wireless sector.

We’ve noted before that Google has hired some lobbyists, and big-name lobbyists, at that.  Now The Mercury News has run an article stating, “Two years ago, the Google staff in Washington was one person – Alan Davidson, an expert in technology law.  Now the staff numbers a dozen, including lobbyists with close ties to both parties, and several other lawyers and lobbyists on retainer.”

Going from one person to twelve – well, that’s either a mere eleven new souls or a 1200 percent increase, depending on how you look at it.  For some perspective, Frank Davies then quoted Ralph Hellman, “a top lobbyist for a tech trade association.”

“I’ve never seen a tech company ramp up faster then they have in the last year or two – they’re using all the tools in the lobbying tool kit,” said Hellmann.  That sounds like a pretty strong endorsement – or condemnation – of Google’s actions, again, depending on how you look at it.

Google’s involvement in D.C. is indeed controversial; a new Public Policy Blog, which our own David Utter covered, is meant to help the company explain its views.  Yet some people still have their doubts, as illustrated by John Paczkowski’s sentence, “Our D.C. Lobby Office’s Motto Is ‘Don’t Be Too Evil.’”

Google Needs K Street View Of DC

Navigating the unfriendly streets of DC by car will lead the first-time driver to encounter the city’s challenging traffic circles. These were designed at a time when the horse and buggy were the transportation method of choice.

You can’t lose your head when trying to merge a very modern auto with the high-speed traffic flying around them. Google has encountered its traffic circle in DC in the form of lawmakers and regulatory agencies, and those are nearly as lethal to a relatively free-wheeling tech company as the real ones are for drivers.

Google will have permanent digs in the Capitol in October, according to a Bloomberg report on the company’s plans. The political reality of Washington has set in for Google; tribute must be paid to lawmakers, in the form of lobbying.

Analyst Blair Levin of Stifel Nicolaus said in the report that Google’s relationship with Washington could have a long-term impact on its stock. He noted the reality of how the company may have to make the occasional deal with the devil to get what it wants:

Tradeoffs that are routine in Washington — making a concession on one issue to win on another — may prove difficult for Google, Levin said. A company will typically lend support to a lawmaker who backs one of its initiatives, even after finding the official’s views on other items “abhorrent,” he said.

“Google has a certain kind of uncompromising sensibility that will be tested in this context,” Levin said.

Al Gore’s pal Eric Schmidt may not like the idea of playing nice with a Republican Senator on a key committee. Lobbyists may have to tell him to suck it up and deal with it. Washington politics is anything but a carefree ride around the Googleplex on a bike.

According to the Financial Times, the search engine giant “advertised for recruits” in not one, not two, but “at least ten capitals.”  And while this is sure to stir up some fresh theories about world domination, Google claims that it’s just protecting its own interests and the general public’s.

After all, applicants should support “the expansion of a free and open internet.”  And Google’s legion of lobbyists, once established, will focus on “privacy, freedom of expression, copyrights, competition and security, regulation of online content, advertising and technology.”  That’s not so bad, right?

Bad press and poor public relations are likely the cause behind the search, however (although a spokesperson explicitly denied this in the Financial Times piece).  If your memory is a little hazy, Nate Anderson did an excellent job of summarizing the many problems Google has encountered in recent days; there are, to understate the issue, a lot of them, and many occurred in Europe and Asia.

One unnamed lobbyist – who quite possibly threw his or her application on Google’s pile – agreed that the company needs help.  “They thought that they could sit on the west coast [of the US] being techie and not deal with all the politics.  Then they realized government has a responsibility to determine the public interest and if you are not talking to them, others are.”

Never fear (or, maybe, “fear” a lot) – Google has gotten the message and is in the process of getting a lot of lobbyists.

“…the people who founded Hak Nam were angry, because the net had been very free, you could do what you wanted, but then the government and the companies, they had different ideas of what you could, what you couldn’t do.”
William Gibson writing about a completely fictional future in Idoru.

It took a long time for Microsoft to recognize the need for having lobbyists on Capitol Hill, before finally setting up shop in Washington. Google has found itself in need of a more regular presence there too, beyond being visited by countless Congressional pages and aides searching online for information.

Google posted on its official blog how it has hired Alan Davidson, Associate Director at the Washington DC-based Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), to be on its Washington team. It’s mission statement has been summarized in the post by senior policy counsel Andrew McLaughlin: “Our mission in Washington boils down to this: Defend the Internet as a free and open platform for information, communication and innovation.”

Mr. McLaughlin mentions several areas of policy that Google hopes to influence. One line will certainly be seized upon by those who see a GoogleNet in the future:

While not directly mentioned, the statement certainly does appear to question legislation introduced by Texas House Congressman Pete Sessions that would prohibit telecom, information, or cable services from being offered by municipal governments.

The post also notes other policy issues on which Google wants to make its views known: copyrights and fair use (“Google believes in protecting copyrights while maintaining strong, viable fair use rights in this new digital age.”), intermediary liability (“…we don’t believe the Internet works well if intermediaries and ISPs are held liable for things created by others but made searchable through us.”), and other topics.

In the future, Google will disclose policy issues it hopes to influence outside the United States. See the full post here.

David Utter is a staff writer for WebProNews covering technology and business. Email him here.

Comcast and Verizon lobbyists are joining forces to warn against this dire threat to continued human existence.

[Ryan Block from Engadget] puts it like this :

“Listen up, Google’s sick of you slowing up their operations with your dialup service, making their servers wait around to send the results of the 800 searches you each perform every day. So they’re stepping it up by dropping $100 million into Current Communications Group, LLC (along with The Hearst Corporation, and Goldman Sachs), who are apparently England’s biggest broadband over powerline company. Take that, NetZero.”

Posted by Coolz0r

Reader Comments…

Nathan Weinberg writes the popular InsideGoogle blog, offering the latest news and insights about Google and search engines.

Visit the InsideGoogle blog.