Every year, beginning around this time, trucks shunt around cities and visit every household in North America, and indeed most of the world, depositing these 6-7lb. volumes in stacks as an edifice to a pre-internet era.  Small businesses waste thousands of dollars each in perfecting their ads and emplacing them in a book that, nowadays, most of us will never demean ourselves to open.

There is substantial waste in this business:  whether it’s the energy expended in physically delivering these books to your doorstep every year, or whether it’s the paper (usually recycled — but that still uses energy) that could go to other uses it’s hard to ignore this big yellow hunk of tree when you trip over it while fumbling for your keys — twice a year in some cities as there’s now competition.

Us New Media types like to portray the Yellow Pages business as an anachronism — an embattled dinosaur searching for relevance in an era when we can Google ’til we puke to find the things we need.  Since this is 2009, a Facebook group has emerged, rather unambiguously called “The Yellow Pages Must Be Stopped“, to demand that the industry adopt an “Opt-In” practise.  I personally have not used a Yellow Pages for anything other than as a monitor stand since the last millennium — except when I was once desperate for a Pizza in a Long Island hotel room.

But unfortunately, the Yellow Pages business is not yet the death march that the Web 2.0 kids have hoped it would become.  … This may say a lot more about the new media of web, telephony, and mobile and their capabilities than it does about the old medium of schlepping giant books door-to-door for punters to thumb through.

For one thing, the Yellow Pages is still the number one tool used by consumers to find local business; the industry continues to forecast growth in the bellwether US marketplace from $10.3 billion in 1996 to a projected $18 billion by 2010 — yes, some of their revenue comes from online, but that number is pegged at between 25% and one-third.

Oh.  And people still (gasp!) turn to their Yellow Pages more frequently than anything else for finding products and services that are local to them.  According to research released a couple of months ago from Knowledge Networks, nearly half (48%) of consumers report print Yellow Pages as the resource they turn to most often for information on a business or service, and more than three-quarters (77%) use the print Yellow Pages overall.

As you would expect, age represents the greatest cutoff point.  The print books are for the olds:  54 percent of respondents over 35 years old said they prefer the Yellow Pages, compared to 29 percent of 18- to 34-year-olds.  I would also hazard a guess that the dividing line dissects social class and educational background as well.

So it might be a little bit early to plan the funeral for the dusty old Yellow Pages, though the companies that produce them are clearly being forced to diversify their product offerings and revenues.  They’re also adapting new standards, such as the shift to recycled paper and soy-based inks.

The Kelsey Group, a Research firm which services the Yellow Pages industry, does forecast turbulent waters ahead for the Print business.  This cut comes from their core base of advertisers, small businesses:

Print Yellow Pages is now in a challenging situation … overall, the accumulated data show small and medium-sized businesses’ spending on advertising has dropped, and the distribution of ad spending by bracket appears to have deteriorated. The assessments of the effectiveness and return on investment performance of print Yellow Pages are also weak. There is strong sentiment to reduce print Yellow Pages spending, and advertisers no longer view category position as a sufficient reason to maintain their current spending levels. In broad terms, SMBs that advertise in print Yellow Pages tend to be more consumer-oriented, established businesses. As a relatively expensive medium, Yellow Pages has lower uptake among younger, growing firms. These findings suggest directory publishers have work ahead of them in reestablishing their value proposition to small-business advertisers, particularly as these advertisers seek partners to help them find customers through nontraditional channels like the Internet, voice and mobile.

Google is not yet good at selling or positioning truly local advertising in scale.  In fact, there is not a single substantial advertising network pursuing this opportunity at the moment:  the problem isn’t in building the technologies that match advertising to your locale — the problem is in having a customer acquisition and sales engagement model that cost-effectively pulls in the mom & pop businesses that are the bread and butter for such an advertising network.

What the Yellow Pages is learning is that perception is their greatest enemy.  While surprising numbers of people still use their dead trees to find services and businesses, their advertisers are pulling out.  Other forms of advertising (even local newspapers) are more trackable and accountable than a static ad in the Yellow Pages that changes, at best, once per year and so there exists a greater perception of value in these.  Ironically, even though it’s still reaching customers, people are starting to realize that for most businesses the Yellow Pages isn’t cost-effective.

The real problem is the lack of a viable alternative.  This is actually where the Yellow Pages businesses stand to benefit.  They practically have a first-right-of-refusal in the small business advertising game already.  They have a scaled-out sales force and a revenue model that supports them — and, if it wasn’t already patently clear, a mandate to protect that structure — therefore they can cost-effectively engage with these small-scale advertisers.

What the Yellow Pages industry needs to do is sell more SKUs.  Today they sell advertising in the printed publication, as well as a range of services within their freestanding online directories.  In fact those Online Directories are #3 behind Search and the Printed Directory for how people find local businesses.  But that ain’t enough.  They need to become advertising networks.  They need to engage with the market of local bloggers, like Vancouver’s own Miss604, and give them advertising inventory that is relevant and can be targeted to their local audiences.

In other words the Yellow Pages businesses need to turn themselves inside-out and, instead of attempting to divert everyone into their silos and cathedrals, free their advertising to integrate with the wealth and breadth of the bazaar.  Locally-focused content sites, which today are starving because the best they can hope for is directly-retained advertising revenue or Google Adwords, could use the help — and in return they stand to generate substantially greater advertising exposure at far less cost than the online yellow pages businesses are attracting today.

It’s a simple shift but one which, I suspect, will have difficulty gaining traction within businesses that emerged from the Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Ma Bells) and which have inherited much of their managerial culture.

But there is a breakaway business opportunity here.  If they can make the shift then I believe the Yellow Pages can experience their third renaissance — and avoid the death by a thousand cuts that awaits them from environmentalists, web 2.0 kiddies, the expiration of their primary demographic, and online media empires alike.

> From: Jeffrey Kay
> Date: Tue Sep 23, 2003 7:20:55 AM US/Pacific
> To: FoRK
> Subject: Verisign’s Domain Redirects
>
> Seems like DNS is in trouble yet again. This is a pretty interesting
> issue.
> One could argue that managing a root gTLD server is a public trust and
> Verisign is violating that trust.
>
> — jeff
>
> VeriSign stands firm on domain redirect
> Last modified: September 22, 2003, 6:07 PM PDT
> By Declan McCullagh
> Staff Writer, CNET News.com
>       
>
> VeriSign said Monday that it would not abandon its decision to point
> unassigned domain names at its Web site, but representatives did say
> the
> company would form a technical committee later this week to look into
> the
> problems caused by the change.
>
> During the last week, criticism has steadily grown over VeriSign’s ”
> SiteFinder ” service, which has caused problems for network
> administrators
> and confused spam-blocking utilities. A number of Internet standards
> bodies
> and administrative groups have asked the Mountain View, Calif.-based
> company–which enjoys a government-granted monopoly over the .com and
> .net
> registry–to stop, and a second lawsuit seeking an injunction against
> the
> practice was filed Monday.
>
> On Monday, VeriSign spokesman Tom Galvin said SiteFinder would remain
> in
> place because “we think the technical review committee is the
> appropriate
> mechanism before making any long-term decisions about the service.” The
> committee members who will be chosen by VeriSign and will report to the
> company will be announced later this week, Galvin said.
>
> “All indications are that users, important members of the Internet
> community
> we all serve, are benefiting from the improved Web navigation offered
> by
> Site Finder,” VeriSign Vice President Russell Lewis said in a Sunday
> letter
> to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).
> “These
> results are consistent with the findings from the extensive research we
> performed.”
>
> ICANN is the nonprofit organization that oversees Internet domain
> names. On
> Friday, the group asked VeriSign to pull the plug on its “wildcard”
> redirection service.
>
> Since then, ICANN’s Security and Stability Advisory Committee has
> published
> a more-detailed critique of the technical problems caused by VeriSign’s
> move. The committee–which includes a VeriSign representative–said it
> would
> hold a public meeting in the Washington, D.C., area on Oct. 7 and has
> asked
> for feedback to be sent to secsac-comments [at] icann [dot] org.
>
> “VeriSign’s change appears to have considerably weakened the stability
> of
> the Internet, introduced ambiguous and inaccurate responses in the
> (Domain
> Name System), and has caused an escalating chain reaction of measures
> and
> countermeasures that contribute to further instability,” the
> committee’s
> critique said. “VeriSign’s change has substantially interfered with
> some
> number of existing services which depend on the accurate, stable, and
> reliable operation of the domain name system.”
>
> VeriSign’s new policy is intended to generate more advertising revenue
> from
> additional visitors to its network of Web sites. But the change has
> had the
> side effect of rewiring a portion of the Internet that software
> designers
> always had expected to behave a certain way. That can snarl antispam
> mechanisms that check to see if the sender’s domain exists, complicate
> the
> analysis of network problems and possibly even pollute search engine
> results. Because VeriSign will become a central destination for
> mistyped
> e-mail and Web traffic, its move also raises serious privacy questions.
>
> On Monday, domain name registrar Go Daddy Software filed a lawsuit in
> federal district court in Arizona seeking to halt the SiteFinder
> redirection. “VeriSign has hijacked this entire process,” Bob Parsons,
> president of Go Daddy, said in a statement. “When the user is sent to
> VeriSign’s advertising page, VeriSign gets paid by the advertiser when
> the
> user clicks a link to get off the page, to the tune of $150 million
> annually, as estimated by VeriSign.”
>
> It appears to be the second lawsuit filed in response to VeriSign’s
> move.
> Popular Enterprises, the parent company of search provider
> Netster.com, sued
> VeriSign over the SiteFinder redirection last week, alleging antitrust
> violations, unfair competition and violations of the Deceptive and
> Unfair
> Trade Practices Act.
>
> Also in response to VeriSign’s move, the well-respected Internet
> Architecture Board published on Saturday a document titled
> “Architectural
> Concerns on the use of DNS Wildcards,” referring to the domain name
> system.
> It says the danger of “wildcard records is that they interact poorly
> with
> any use of the DNS that depends on ‘no such name’ responses.”
>
> jeffrey kay
> weblog pgp key aim
> share files with me — get shinkuro —
>
> “first get your facts, then you can distort them at your leisure” —
> mark
> twain
> “if the person in the next lane at the stoplight rolls up the window
> and
> locks the door, support their view of life by snarling at them” — a
> biker’s
> guide to life
> “if A equals success, then the formula is A equals X plus Y plus Z. X
> is
> work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut.” — albert einstein
>
>
>

Google vs. Evil

The world’s biggest, best-loved search engine owes its success to supreme technology and a simple rule: Don’t be evil. Now the geek icon is finding that moral compromise is just the cost of doing big business.

By Josh McHugh

Life used to be so much easier for Sergey Brin. In the autumn of 1998, he and Larry Page unleashed Google with a clear mission: Help computer users find exactly what they want on the Internet. Newbies flocked to the site, grateful for a simple search engine that was both powerful and intuitive. More sophisticated techies came to appreciate Google’s computational elegance and its willingness to shun the “portal” model that crammed ecommerce down their throats. Within months, Google became one of the most popular sites on the Web – and not long after that, “Google” became a verb. Today, Internet users spend about 15 million hours a month on the site. Google.com logs more than 28 million visitors each month, nearly as many as Yahoo! and MSN. Nearly four out of five Internet searches happen on Google or on sites that license its technology.

Google owes its swelling popularity to deft algorithms that quickly divine what’s useful on the Web. But there’s more to it than that. At Google, purity matters. Over the years, Brin and Page have resisted pressure to run banners, opting instead for haiku-like text ads and unintrusive sponsored links. They’ve taken a stand against pop-ups and pop-unders and refused ads from sites they consider to be overly negative. All the while, they’ve stubbornly kept the Google homepage concise and pristine. On just a faint whisper of a marketing campaign, the company pulled in an estimated $70 million last year (a third from licensing fees and the rest from ads).

The Google strategy appeals to every engineer’s sense of The Way It Should Be. Build the best entry in the science fair. Do not tart it up. Do not make it more clever than it needs to be.

But a funny thing is happening on the way to Internet adulthood – Google’s awkward teen years. The company’s growth spurt has spawned a host of daunting questions that no data-retrieval system can easily answer. Should Google play ball with repressive foreign governments? Refuse to link users to “hate” sites? Punish marketers who artificially inflate site rankings? Fight the Church of Scientology’s attempts to silence critics? And what to do about the cache, Google’s archive of previously indexed pages? In April, the German national railroad threatened legal action to remove an obsolete site containing sabotage instructions.

Most major companies refer to a detailed code of corporate conduct when considering such policy decisions. General Electric devotes 15 pages on its Web site to an integrity policy. Nortel’s site has 34 pages of guidelines. Google’s code of conduct can be boiled down to a mere three words: Don’t be evil.

Very Star Wars. But what does it mean?

“Evil,” says Google CEO Eric Schmidt, “is what Sergey says is evil.”

Of the Google triumvirate, Schmidt makes sure the company stays on course financially and strategically; Page keeps busy in the R&D lab, cranking out new features; and the 29-year-old Brin, in his role as Google’s conscience and head policymaker, spends his days gripping the moral tiller – and in so doing, imposes his worldview on everyone else.

That puts Brin at the flashpoint of most of the major Internet-related controversies. He knows his decisions have far-reaching consequences. He feels the pressure that attends Google’s growing power. “I do get fairly stressed,” Brin says. “I’d like to feel a little less scrutinized.”

Google has succeeded by adhering to one, pure principle: Do good by users. Now, for the first time in its history, Google is facing rifts between what’s good for users and what’s good for Google. And Sergey Brin is finding that purity just doesn’t scale.

II.

Don’t be evil. Brin has had to refer back to those three words quite a bit over the past year. Governments, religious bodies, businesses, and individuals are all bearing down on the company, forcing Brin to make decisions that have an effect on the entire Internet. “Things that would normally be side issues for another company carry the weight of responsibility for us,” Brin says.

In March, lawyers representing the Church of Scientology requested that Google stop linking to a Norwegian anti-Scientology site called Operation Clambake. The church claimed the site, xenu.net, displayed copyrighted Scientology content and that by providing links to the information, Google was in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Much to the dismay of many First Amendment fans, Google caved, removing the offending pages from its index.

In May, Anita Roddick, the outspoken British founder of the Body Shop, blasted Google in her blog for yanking a text ad for her site. Google’s explanation: Roddick had called actor John Malkovich a “vomitous worm” in her blog, violating a Google policy against accepting ads for sites that are “anti-” anything. After Roddick protested, Google offered to reinstate the ad in exchange for a promise from Roddick that she would remove the Malkovich reference from the first page of her site. When she refused, Brin had a decision to make: Should he give in and accept Roddick’s money, or stand by his principles? He chose his principles.

Three months later, Daniel Brandt, who runs google-watch.org, attacked PageRank, the algorithm at the heart of Google’s vaunted system, accusing the company of being unfair and undemocratic. Brandt urged the FTC to investigate Google and regulate it as a public utility – as a company that, in effect, controls access to the Internet’s natural resources. The mainstream press tended to dismiss Brandt as a webmaster spurned by a low Google ranking, but in the online forums and weblogs, many agreed with his assertion. As far as search engines go, Google has become the only game in town.

Then in the first week of September, Brin found himself pulled into matters of foreign policy. He received several emails from users telling him that the Chinese government, worried about political dissent in the weeks before the 16th Chinese Party Congress, had shut down access to the site. “Our Chinese traffic was down by a factor of five,” Brin says. “We were blocked.”

Brin was no expert on international diplomacy. So he ordered a half-dozen books about Chinese history, business, and politics on Amazon.com and splurged on overnight shipping. He consulted with Schmidt, Page, and David Drummond, Google’s general counsel and head of business development, then put in a call to tech industry doyenne Esther Dyson for advice and contacts. Google has no offices in China, so Brin enlisted go-betweens to get the message to Chinese authorities that Google would be very interested in working out a compromise to restore access. “We didn’t want to do anything rash,” Brin says. “The situation over there is more complex than I had imagined.”

Four days later, Chinese authorities restored access to the site. How did that happen? For starters, the Chinese government was deluged with outcries from the nation’s 46 million Internet users when access to Google was cut off. “Internet users in China are an apolitical crowd,” says Xiao Qiang, executive director of New York-based Human Rights In China. “They tend to be people who are doing well, and they don’t usually voice strong views. But this stepped into their digital freedom.”

The quick workaround: Chinese authorities tweaked the national firewall, making the new Google China different from the site that was turned off. Today, Chinese who use Google to search on terms like “falun gong” or “human rights in china” receive a standard-looking results page. But when they click on any of the results, either their browsers are redirected to a blank or government-approved page, or their computers are blocked from accessing Google for an hour or two. “They have a new mechanism that can block the results of certain searches,” Brin says. Did Google help China find or obtain the filtering technology? “We didn’t make changes to our servers” is all he’ll say.

In late October, a report by two Harvard researchers revealed that Google had begun filtering its own servers to block users in Germany, France, and Switzerland from accessing sites carrying material likely to be judged racist or inflammatory in each country. Neither Brin nor anyone else at Google will talk about about the preemptive self-censoring moves in Europe.

In the wake of these international incidents, members of Google’s loyal, tech-savvy constituency began to question the company’s motives. “I am a little on the fence about Google’s latest actions,” wrote Brian Osborne, a staff writer for Geek.com, a news site. “On one hand, I understand Google’s stance that it must remain in compliance with German and French laws. Nevertheless, Google is putting itself on a very slippery slope.”

III.

“What is this?” asks a visitor squinting at the form he must sign before proceeding to the cafeteria at Google’s Mountain View, California, headquarters. “An NDA? To have lunch?”

The receptionist shrugs. “This is Google,” she says. “They’re crazy that way.”

The Googleplex, contrary to almost every written account of the place, is hardly a haven of easygoing geek whimsy. The cafeteria is adorned with a tie-dyed banner, but the Google employees aren’t humming any Dead songs. Most of them appear deadly serious. Brin’s second-floor office overlooks a courtyard festooned with empty hammocks. A book about Enron rests on his coffee table.

Brin’s designation as Google’s policy maven is relatively new. He, the big thinker, and Page, the mad scientist, complemented each other and shared nearly every role in Google’s early years. “Larry was always the driver,” says Scott Hassan, who did much of the programming for the original Google. “A big part of his role was going around and yelling ‘Why can’t it do this? Why isn’t this working?'” Brin would sit next to Hassan and watch him write code, pointing out errors and taking an occasional turn at the keyboard.

The frenetic Page looked at all the popular engines at the time and decided they were going about search the wrong way. By relying on HTML code – meta tags as well as page text – they would bring back all sorts of irrelevant information and open themselves up to massive manipulation by webmasters looking to increase their own rankings. Brin took Page’s observation and ran with it. He figured the best way around the problem was to harness the vast repository of human judgments already preserved on the Internet in the form of hyperlinks. “Most people search for local maximums – like figuring out how to get the best car, the best immediate situation,” Hassan says. “Sergey is always searching for global maximums.”

By 2001, Google’s breakneck growth convinced Page and Brin it was time to establish a more rigid structure. Page handed over the CEO title to Schmidt and became copresident with Brin. The move freed up Page to focus on developing his knack for product development (as a child, he crafted a printer out of spare parts and Lego blocks). Brin’s passion for the big picture made him the natural choice to spend time on Google’s growing role in the world.

Which means Brin’s views on politics and policy matter quite a bit. Not that he’s willing to talk. He tells me he listens to NPR on his morning drive to work. I think Democrat and ask about his voter affiliation. He says he votes across party lines. Independent? He smiles and tells me there’s no easy shortcut toward figuring out how he comes to his decisions about good and evil. And even if there was, he wouldn’t let me in on it. If I succeed in figuring out exactly what he considers good and evil, people who don’t care about Google users might start gaming him the way they try to game his search engine.

Born in Moscow and raised in the suburbs of Washington, DC, Brin grew up listening in on conversations at the dinner parties thrown by his father, a math professor, and his mother, a NASA scientist. Talking about his decisions and the values he holds most dear, Brin chooses his language carefully, but one word he repeatedly comes back to is “useful.” And while Google’s policy decisions over the past year look a bit haphazard at first glance, they begin to make more sense in a worldview where usefulness is the paramount virtue.

Aside from the indisputable goodness of causing hard-line Communist Party officials to say the word “Google” to one another for a few days, it’s difficult to say on which side of the good-evil line the company’s China resolution falls. Brin seems at peace with how it all turned out. “Political searches are not that big a fraction of the searches coming out of China,” he says. “You want to look at the total value picture that a search engine like Google brings and think of all that it’s used for.”

But Xiao Qiang, the activist, thinks the company should have taken a firmer stand. “Ultimately, China’s state censorship mechanism will have to submit to this growing demand for freedom from Chinese netizens,” Xiao says. “It’s important to protect integrity, particularly for an Internet firm.”

On the same day that China blocked access to Google, it also flipped the switch on AltaVista. AltaVista issued a defiant statement to the media and went on to list several ways to access the site. Months later, AltaVista is still blocked. Brin figures that by meeting China halfway, Google remained available – and useful – to visitors and also preserved its advertising revenue there. “You have to look at the total value picture,” he says.

What about the Scientology mess? Didn’t Google give in too easily? Jennifer Urban, a fellow at Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law and a member of Chilling Effects, an organization formed to document attempts to stifle speech on the Internet, says that from a legal standpoint, Google’s hands were tied. “To qualify for safe harbor protection from liability, they really have to err on the side of taking down the link,” Urban says.

In fact, Google didn’t fold entirely. After consulting with Brin, Kulpreet Rana, Google’s head of IP, found a way that Google could comply with the law without letting the Scientologists erase their critics from the Internet. The solution: When Google gets a request to remove a link under the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA Section 512, it substitutes a link to a form on the Chilling Effects’ site. The form contains the Web address of the page in question, and anyone still interested in the site can direct their browser to the address.

Does abiding by the letter of a bad and flimsy law absolve Google from charges that it squashed free expression? Cindy Cohn, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, is certain that a vigorous legal challenge would put an end to the steady flow of Section 512 filings Google receives but admits she doesn’t expect Google to devote its resources to such a broad fight. And while some cheered Google’s workaround as evidence of a rebellious bit of payback – a small point scored against the enemies of unfettered speech – the move is another instance of Brin choosing the path of usefulness over a righteous crusade.

IV.

If Brin’s code of good and evil permits the company to negotiate with sovereign governments and allows for some legal meddling from unpopular religions, there is no wiggle room – no gray area whatsoever – when it comes to those who attempt to subvert the power of Google to their own commercial ends. One thing Brin is sure of: On the side of evil lies trickery.

I ask Brin to imagine, for a moment, running his company’s evil twin, a sort of anti-Google. “We would be doing things like having advertising that wasn’t marked as being paid for. Stuff that violates the trust of the users,” he says, describing a site that sounds not unlike the pay-for-placement search site Overture. “Say someone came looking for breast cancer information and didn’t know that some listings were paid for with money from drug companies. We’d be endangering people’s health.”

The anti-Google might also be more amenable to the growing business of “optimization,” the altering of Web sites so that they rank higher in search engine results. For a fee, there’s help for a Dallas plumber who’s unhappy that his site is on the 17th page of results when someone types “Dallas plumber” into Google. An optimizer will tweak the site in such a way that boosts it to, say, the 3rd page of results.

To pull this off with Google, an optimizer needs to understand how the company’s search mechanism works. Google uses 100 or so closely guarded algorithms to determine its search results. The best known of the lot is called PageRank, which allocates relevancy to a page according to the number and importance of pages linked to it, the number and importance of pages linked to each of those pages, and so on. One ploy is to create “link farms,” in which an optimizer gets clients to link to one another, racking up relevancy points. In general, optimizers make a living by guessing what Google regards as important. The way Brin sees it, the optimizers are co-opting Google’s bond of trust with its users. He regards optimizers the way a mother grizzly might regard a hunter jabbing at her cub with a stick.

Every month, when Google updates its index and its mix of algorithms, it rakes a disruptive claw across the optimizers’ systems. In the industry, the monthly shuffle is known as the Google Dance, and Brin doesn’t mind letting on that if Google ends up dancing all over the optimizers, so much the better. “When we change and improve our technology, things get shuffled around,” Brin says, “and sometimes it has a disproportionate effect on optimization sites.”

Consider the case of Bob Massa, a former solid oak dining room furniture salesman who lives in Oklahoma City and runs SearchKing, an optimization company he started in 1997. Last summer, Massa received a rare gift from Google in the form of the Google Toolbar, a software program that lets users perform searches without going to Google.com. More important for Massa, the Toolbar shows the approximate PageRank, on a scale of one to ten, of whatever page a user is visiting. It was the first time since Brin and Page were in grad school that they’d shared so much technical information. After years of watching Google’s every move like an Etruscan high priest trying to augur divine intent from cloud formations, Massa had a piece of the goods. On August 9, Massa started selling optimization based on PageRank.

After the Google Dance of September 20, most of Massa’s customers suddenly found themselves in a heap at the very bottom of Google’s 3 billion site index. It seems that the improvements Google had made included a severe downgrade of sites with links to SearchKing. Massa’s customers, needless to say, were very, very unhappy. “Everyone thinks I’m the biggest idiot in the world for making Google mad,” Massa said in October.

He filed suit a few weeks later, charging that Google downgraded his customers’ scores in a deliberate attempt to put him out of business. The suit asks for an injunction forcing Google to restore the scores to pre-Dance levels, and seeks $75,000 in damages. “It’s a classic good versus evil thing,” says Massa, turning Brin’s framework back on Google itself. “I knew they wouldn’t like it. I didn’t think they’d go so far as to wipe out all these little people.”

The day Massa’s suit was filed, the reaction from the Slashdot crowd and most other forums was predictably vociferous, with posters stumbling over themselves to craft metaphors painting Massa as a criminal suing his victim. But gradually, a surprising number of people, while careful not to look as though they were defending Massa, began tagging the search engine as a Google-opoly. It’s hard to sympathize with a David as parasitic as Massa, but Slashdotters tend to be uneasy with Goliaths of any stripe, especially when their methods are kept secret.

And the real problem with Massa is that he’s simply the termite Brin is able to see. There are thousands more behind the wall, invisibly boring away at the very structure of Google’s house. “It’s easy to become overly obsessed with those kinds of things,” Brin admits.

It would make things a lot easier for Brin if the world’s webmasters would just act as though his site didn’t matter, but that’s not human nature. There’s no way around it – as long as Google remains the search engine of choice, the arms race between Google coders and the hordes of optimizers will go on.

V.

As proficient as Google is at revealing information, Brin is adept at keeping key morsels under wraps. In a way, that makes a lot of sense. Although the obvious image of Google is one of accumulation, the essence of data retrieval is just the opposite. Google is about division and subtraction, narrowing down billions of choices before revealing the most promising. Brin’s world isn’t as simple as visible equals good, hidden equals evil. Google’s effectiveness as a search tool depends largely on how well it’s able to shroud the site’s inner workings from the commercial interests that clutter so much of the Internet today.

But here’s the thing: If Brin thinks his job has become more difficult over the past year, it may soon become near impossible. In September, at the height of the China controversy, Google legal eagle Drummond spotted an article about the prospect of a Google IPO, which, the story said, might be the spark to ignite the dormant public offerings market. Drummond forwarded the story with some sardonic comments. In his office, Brin tries to find the email for me but can’t. He notes the irony in that, and goes on to paraphrase the note: “Oh, OK, now we’re going to reform the Chinese government – and on top of that, we’re going to fix Wall Street.”

Schmidt claims the company is in no rush to go public, but his appointment and the hiring of CFO George Rayes last August were unmistakable steps in that direction. When the IPO comes, it will bring riches – and more problems.

As a private company, Google has one master: users. As a public company, there are shareholders to worry about. And more than happy users, shareholders want ever-greater profits. Thus far, Brin and Page have succeeded in standing up to pressures that might compromise Google and the user experience. Google’s influential stand against pop-up ads extends beyond its own domain – the company rejects advertisers whose links take Google users to pages that feature pop-ups. (AOL followed suit in October, announcing its own pop-up moratorium.) But when Google becomes a public company, shareholders might force the site to take a more amenable position, if the price is right. After all, for several years, Yahoo! refused to accept anything but fast-loading banner ads, claiming that it was looking out for users. That policy lasted until right about the time that the company’s stock price began to cave.

Such pressure could cause Brin to rethink other policies, like his decision to refuse all alcohol and tobacco advertising. The fact that Google accepts advertising for adult content sites is an intriguing commentary on Brin’s morality: Cigarettes and booze are evil; porn is not. It’s a policy that would become progressively harder to defend were Google to go public. Then there’s the Google cache to consider. Today’s users love having access to a warehouse of information that was once published on the Internet but has since disappeared. Some information goes away for a reason, though. The cache could get Google in trouble, and Brin & Co. could soon find themselves facing all sorts of libel, defamation, or copyright lawsuits.

Increased competition may also cause Brin to do other things he’s loath to do. So far, Google has gotten by without much in the way of competition from the other Internet superpowers. But in May, Yusuf Mehdi, the head of MSN, said he views Google as “more of a competitor than a partner” in the effort to become the default homepage on millions of browsers. What if, as Google.com solidifies its position as the focal point of the Internet, Yahoo! and AOL begin to rethink the millions in licensing fees they pay to what has become a top competitor? Brin may be forced to make the kind of concessions that he’s thus far reserved for international governments.

The utilitarian manner in which Google has achieved its success has made it a sentimental favorite among the code-parsing set. Tech-community sites like Slashdot are almost uniformly pro-Google. Those with the temerity to bring lawsuits against Google ultimately feel the burn of online flames, watching their servers wither under the quasi-zealous wrath of thousands of engineers defending one of their own. But as Google is forced to make more concessions to realpolitik, its bonds with that idealistic constituency will inevitably continue to fray.

And without any sort of technological lock-in, it would be very easy for Google’s visitors to simply start using other search engines. Fast Search & Transfer, based in Norway, boasts a 2.1 billion-page index at www.alltheweb.com, and its search engine works as quickly as Google’s. What’s more, it does a complete crawl of the Internet every 7 to 11 days compared with Google’s 28 days. What if an influential group of politically active netizens makes a rousing case for boycotting Google on the grounds that it is anti-free speech and in cahoots with repressive governments? How long can a hugely powerful company that plays its decisions so close to the vest and refuses to justify itself publicly count on the devotion of the average information-hungry Web user?

It’s inevitable that a company of Google’s size and influence will have to compromise on purity. There’s a chance that, in five years, Google will end up looking like a slightly cleaner version of what Yahoo! has become. There’s also a chance that the site will be able to make a convincing case to investors that long-term user satisfaction trumps short-term profit. The leadership of the Internet is Sergey Brin’s to lose. For now, at least, in Google we trust.

Josh McHugh (josh [at] buzzkiller [dot] net) wrote about Wi-Fi campus life in Wired 10.10.

———–

This beats the old daze, when the RBOCs would have tried to replicate this huge media empire themselves, but I still don’t see how Yahoo! can reap profitability based strictly on the ad revenues. There’s got to be some cash flowing from SBC to YahoO!

-Ian.

— http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020913/ap_on_hi_te/ yahoo_high_speed Technology – AP Yahoo, SBC Unveil High-Speed Service Fri Sep 13, 6:13 AM ET

By MICHAEL LIEDTKE, AP Business Writer

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) – Online powerhouse Yahoo Inc. and regional phone giant SBC Communications Inc. on Friday unveiled a high-speed Internet service designed to convince more people that broadband is worth the extra money.

Sunnyvale-based Yahoo and San Antonio-based SBC have been working on the service since they joined forces last year. The new service, available in all 13 states where SBC provides phone service, will allow subscribers to surf the Web at speeds up to 25 times as fast as traditional dial-up modems.

The new service’s content is supposed to be just as big of a selling point as its speed. Yahoo has developed a souped-up version of its popular Web page that will provide subscribers with a wide range of exclusive entertainment options and other applications unavailable anywhere else.

“We have been programming to the lowest common denominator until now,” said Jim Brock, a Yahoo senior vice president who oversaw the project. “This is going to change the broadband landscape.”

The alliance between Yahoo and SBC stems from a recognition that the fast speeds and “always on” connections provided by broadband aren’t enough to persuade most people to dig deeper into their pockets to pay for the service.

“Broadband adoption is going to have to be content driven,” said industry analyst Mark Kersey of the La Jolla research firm ARS Inc. “There has to be something available on broadband that people can’t get on dial-up before people will pay more.”

The average monthly charge for a digital subscriber line — one of the most widely used forms of broadband — is $51.36, according to ARS. The average monthly price for a high-speed cable modem ( news – web sites) is $45.31, ARS said.

In contrast, the most popular dial-up services charge $20 to $24 a month.

To promote their new service, Yahoo and SBC will offer promotional discounts of $29.95 to $39.95 per month, depending on which of three transmission speeds a subscriber wants. After six months, the subscription rate will become $42.95 to $59.95 per month.

The companies are confident price won’t discourage subscribers.

“This will bring broadband to the masses,” predicted Jason Few, an SBC vice president overseeing the new Yahoo service. Subscribers should be able to launch the service within a week of signing up, Few said.

Yahoo and SBC aren’t the first formidable partners to enter the broadband market with lofty ambitions.

Microsoft’s MSN service and regional phone carrier Qwest Communication last year rolled out a high-speed Internet service that hasn’t made a significant dent in the market, Kersey said.

The broadband market has been growing steadily, but not at the rapid clip that telecommunication providers envisioned when they made huge investments in broadband networks during the late 1990s.

There’s about 15.2 million broadband subscribers today, up from 9.1 million a year ago, ARS said.

The new Yahoo and SBC service will have a big customer base to build upon.

SBC has about 35 million residential customers in California, Texas, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Connecticut and Nevada. The company already has 1.7 million broadband subscribers and 1.6 million customers with dial-up Internet services.

Yahoo is counting on the new broadband service to help it recover from the dot-com bust that wiped out a large chunk of its advertising revenue. The company has been trying to sell more fee-based services under a new management team led by former Hollywood executive Terry Semel.

“We view this as a foundation for developing compelling subscription products,” Brock said.

———–

DULLES, Va. — AOL Time Warner Inc.’s America Online Inc. (NYSE:AOL – News) unit streamlined its management structure in hopes of increasing accountability at the online giant, while setting clearer priorities and clarifying its organization roles.

ADVERTISEMENT The changes, which had been expected, would eliminate the president and chief operating officer posts, while giving recently appointed Chairman and Chief Executive Jon Miller a more direct role in overseeing America Online’s key units.

In addition, the maligned Business Affairs division will be disbanded, with employees reassigned to the business units they support. The group, which arranged long-term sponsorships and marketing partnerships with advertisers, has come under criticism for the way it crafted deals, some of which are under investigation by the government regulators looking at how the booked revenue was recorded.

The company said a month ago that America Online may have improperly recognized $49 million of revenue over six quarters and is combing through its books for any other possible errors.

Mr. Miller has his hands full, with America Online reeling from plunging advertising revenue, slowing subscriber growth and probes into its accounting practices by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department.

Mr. Miller, who last month became the third CEO of the Internet unit this year, will take a more direct role in the America Online brand, interactive marketing and broadband units.

“AOL must maintain its leadership position among dial-up subscribers, enhance our broadband business and reinvigorate our relationship with marketers,” he said in a prepared statement. “To do this, we will fully leverage our programming and product expertise, along with the superior technology behind our unmatched member experience, to create exciting, relevant and distinctive new products and content that will change the way both dial-up and high-speed consumers think about AOL.”

As part of the restructuring, current America Online COO J. Michael Kelly will become chairman and CEO of America Online International, will oversee the company’s AOL Anywhere products — which focus on wireless access to America Online — and report to Mr. Miller.

“Mike Kelly’s appointment signals the priority I’ve placed on our international and AOL Anywhere businesses,” Mr. Miller said.

Chief Financial Officer Joseph Ripp will become vice chairman and other corporate and operating functions, including AOL’s network infrastructure and technology operations. Current Vice Chairman Ted Leonsis will head newly created councils overseeing brand, product and technology strategy.

The two will also join Mr. Miller, James de Castro, interactive services president and the person who oversees the America Online Internet service, and Don Logan, chairman of AOL Time Warner’s media and communications group, in a new senior strategy group.

Mr. Ripp, America Online’s CFO since the company’s acquisiton of Time Warner Inc. in early 2001, will keep that role until a replacement is named. Mr. Kelly became America Online’s chief operating officer in November.

Mr. Miller also said that America Online President Ray Oglethorpe recently told the company he would retire after serving as a senior adviser during an undisclosed transition period, and that Vice Chairman and Chief Marketing Officer Jan Brandt will step down from those posts and take on a new part-time role as a senior adviser.

-Maria P. Vallejo; Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-5400 and Kevin Kingsbury; Dow Jones Newswires; 609-520-4367

———–

-Ian.

——— http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010928/tc/exciteathome_bankruptcy_4.html

Friday September 28 8:32 PM ET

ExciteAtHome to Sell Assets to AT&T

By MATTHEW FORDAHL, AP Technology Writer

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) – ExciteAtHome, the leading provider of high-speed Internet access over cable television lines, said Friday it will sell its broadband business to AT&T Corp. for $307 million in cash and filed for bankruptcy protection.

Under the agreement, the once high-flying company’s network would become a part of AT&T, which already has a controlling interest in ExciteAtHome. The deal is subject to a bankruptcy judge’s approval.

The bankruptcy papers, filed late Friday in San Francisco, will not result in any service disruptions to ExciteAtHome’s 3.7 million subscribers, the companies said.

“This filing is a tool to protect the value of the broadband business for the benefit of the company’s financial stakeholders and will help reassure our customers that service will continue uninterrupted through the restructuring process,” said Patti Hart, ExciteAtHome’s chief executive.

The directors of both AT&T and ExciteAtHome approved the asset-purchase agreement. The deal, however, could be canceled if higher and better offers are received.

In a statement, AT&T said it plans to build on the assets it acquires to develop a more robust network. AT&T spokeswoman Eileen Connolly declined to comment on how the deal might relate to any possible sale of its broadband unit. In July, AT&T’s board rejected cable TV provider Comcast Corp.’s unsolicited $40 billion stock swap offer for AT&T Broadband. On Friday, Comcast announced it had signed a confidentiality agreement rekindling talks.

ExciteAtHome’s bankruptcy filing is the latest development in the spectacular rise and fall of Redwood City, Calif.-based company.

At the height of the Internet boom in 1999, At Home Corp. merged with the portal Excite Inc. in a $6.7 billion merger. Executives at the time believed the company would someday rival America Online.

But the bubble burst and advertising revenue dwindled.

After losing $7.4 billion in fiscal 2000, ExciteAtHome said in April it needed to raise $75 million to $80 million to make it through 2001. The company restructured its fiber-optic network lease deal with AT&T and sold $100 million in notes.

Even so, ExciteAtHome said in July it needed more cash to stay in business in 2002.

The company also cut back its work force. The latest round came Tuesday, when it reduced its ranks by 27 percent, or 500 jobs as it shuttered its MatchLogic division and discontinued less popular services on the Excite portal.

Shares of ExciteAtHome closed up 2 cents, to 15 cents, in Friday trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market. It lost 3 cents in after-hours trading. It traded around $100 in April 1999. Shares of AT&T closed up 60 cents to $19.30 in Friday trading on the New York Stock Exchange (news – web sites).

AT&T became the controlling shareholder of ExciteAtHome with its purchase of the cable giant Tele-Communications Inc. in 1999. TCI, along with Comcast and Cox, was an early participant in the At Home network.

It’s not the first time that AT&T has purchased the assets of a high-speed Internet provider during bankruptcy proceedings. Earlier this year, it paid $135 million for the assets but not the customers of NorthPoint Communications, which provided high-speed access over telephone lines.