Google gears up Middle East lobbying machine

Google is prepping its lobbying apparatus for deployment in the Middle East, according to The National – and this has the potential to get... interesting.

So far the Middle East has mostly only seen the cuddly, fluffy side of the US search giant: the hey-everyone-isn’t-online-advertising-and-the-internet-in-general-great approach. But now, things are getting serious.

“Wherever there are restrictions on the internet, as there are here, they try to ensure that they lobby sufficiently to make sure whatever Google does isn’t kept behind the gates,” said Saleem Adam, an Abu Dhabi-based tech/comms specialist at law firm Trowers and Hamlins, quoted in The National, adding that this move was “good news”.

This might be something of an overly-positive spin.

Let’s be clear, here: we don’t believe Google is inherently bad, or has any kind of sinister agenda or any of that daft conspiracy stuff. Google is not one of the corporate bad guys (yes, US oil companies, we’re looking at you).

But Google is no white knight either, despite the spin it likes to weave in the media. Google is, ultimately, out for itself – and it just so happens that, for now at least, what most benefits Google is as many people doing as many things as they like online. For Google and its ubiquitous ads, clicks very literally equal cash.

This being said, Google is not above playing the bruising game of politics, with the aim of either boosting its own agenda, or crippling those of its rivals, direct or otherwise.

The methods, and lengths, to which Google is prepared to go could be not-unreasonably described as Machiavellian. Take, for example, its involvement in the auction of wireless spectrum in the US a couple of years ago.

The search giant put in hefty bids against established telcos, not because it wanted to buy the radio spectrum – but because it wanted to make sure the bidding passed the point where US regulator the Federal Communications Commission had agreed to impose an “openness” clause – a clause that was there because Google lobbied for it.

Hmm – that does sound a bit like a conspiracy theory, doesn’t it? How about some proof?

“Google's top priority heading into the auction was to make sure that bidding on the so-called ‘C Block’ [radio spectrum] reached the $4.6 billion reserve price that would trigger the important ‘open applications’ and ‘open handsets’ license conditions,” wrote Google lawyers Richard Whitt and Joseph Faber, on the official Google Blog.

“You may remember that as the FCC was setting rules for the auction last summer [2007], we urged the Commission to adopt four openness conditions. Further, we vowed to bid at least $4.6 billion in the auction if the Commission adopted all four rules. Even though the FCC ultimately agreed to only two of the conditions, which nullified our original pledge, we still believed it was important to demonstrate through action our commitment to a more open wireless world,” they added.

In other words, Google played a $5 billion game of chicken with some of America’s most powerful companies. And why? Because now, although Verizon owns that spectrum, it can’t restrict what devices use it – which is good news for Google, as it makes mobile broadband devices (on which users can look at Google ads) a much more likely prospect (although, as of 2008, the Google-Verizon-FCC game continued).

Google played a dirty game – but ultimately, in this case, the users will be the ones to benefit. The FCC was reportedly quite happy to be played by Google in this instance, because it ended up to the benefit of more than the winning bidder - this was in contrast to US law-makers, though, who were somewhat less amused.

Note, also, that Google is very happy to talk publicly about its strategies – ironic for a company which otherwise remains very quiet on a whole range of questions (eg, “so just how DOES your search algorithm work...?”).

For another example of Google’s dalliances, this time in Europe, witness its attempts to persuade the European Parliament – the EU’s rather impotent and possibly pointless legislative body – to enact Net Neutrality legislation (if you don’t know, don’t ask – it’s long and complicated). Google took the lead in lobbying the parliament, and even suggested specific language to go into the not-especially-wanted legislation.

See also Google’s ongoing rows with book publishers over copyright, with news outlets over copyright, with film, TV and music publishers over... er, copyright (there’s a theme, here), and everyone on medical data – all of which it’s happy to take to the courts if it has to, and to the legislators when it can. Oh, and then Google managed to get its (now technically ex-) man into the White House.

In the West, where money really does buy power, Google has been very successful pushing its agenda. Here in the Middle East, with its murky mix of patronage, wasta, cultural sensitivity and downright stubbornness, the search firm may find it has to up the subtlety of its game.

On the search for a regional lobbyist, Google’s regional communications and public affairs manager Joanne Kubba told The National: “The Middle East is a growing market for us, and this is another sign we are fully developing our presence here.

“It is about everything from engaging in policy discussions with think tanks and industry groups to having a presence in debates taking place around the region. It’s always good to have someone on the ground working on this type of thing,” she added.

The fact that Google has this sort of interest in the region is indeed something of a compliment – and its lobbying may well yield real, positive change that benefits internet users and those of us that would hope to make a living from them.

But while the attention is flattering, we in the region’s media and communications sector would do well to keep a close eye on what the Googleplex is up to – if we can, outside the closed doors of the region’s lawmakers.

“Don’t be evil” is all well and good, but just as one man’s freedom-fighter is another man’s terrorist, so one firm’s “access for all” is another’s death knell, in the face of overwhelming competition.

To reiterate, we have no preconceived notions – let’s just not walk into this thing with our trousers down and wallets out.