DOCSLIB.ORG

Search Neutrality As a Regulation Principle for Internet Search Engines

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Search Neutrality As a Regulation Principle for Internet Search Engines Faculty : Law Study area : Law, notaryship and criminology Programme : Master in Intellectual Property Rights Search neutrality as a regulation principle for Internet search engines A multidisciplinary approach Master thesis submitted by Ines GEORGIEVA Student number: 0465533 To obtain the degree of Master in Intellectual Property Rights Promoter: Prof. Dr. Peggy VALCKE Co-reader: Prof. Dr. Eva LIEVENS Academic year 2013 - 2014 Search neutrality as a regulation principle for Internet search engines A multidisciplinary approach "To exist is to be indexed by a search engine" (L. Introna & H. Nissenbaum) Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my promoter Prof. Dr. Peggy Valcke for the useful comments, guidance, encouragements and her availability. Furthermore I would like to thank my close relatives and friends, who have supported me during six year of law studies, which means thirteen exam sessions, seventy-one exams and two master theses. Without their support, I don't know how I could have reached my goals. Ines Georgieva Brussels, August 2014 1 Table of contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 6 1. Background and research question ........................................................................................ 6 2. Structure ................................................................................................................................ 7 3. Research approach and method ............................................................................................. 8 Chapter 1. Internet search engines: general overview ...................................................................... 9 1. Internet search engines .......................................................................................................... 9 1.1. Definition ....................................................................................................................... 9 1.2. Distinction between horizontal and vertical search ..................................................... 10 2. Functioning of search engines ............................................................................................. 10 2.1. Crawling and indexing ................................................................................................. 10 2.2. Algorithms and ranking ............................................................................................... 11 2.3. The user interface design of search engines................................................................. 11 3. Evolution of search engines: from Ten blue links to Universal search ............................... 13 4. The functional and societal role of search engines ............................................................. 15 4.1. Functional role ............................................................................................................. 15 4.1.1. Informational search ............................................................................................. 15 4.1.2. Navigational search .............................................................................................. 15 4.1.3. Transactional search ............................................................................................. 16 4.2. Societal role of search engines ..................................................................................... 16 5. Market structure of Internet search engines: a microeconomic analysis............................. 17 5.1. A three-sided market .................................................................................................... 18 5.2. Network effects ............................................................................................................ 19 5.3. Innovation driven industries and fast moving markets ................................................ 20 5.4. Economies of scale ...................................................................................................... 21 5.5. Highly concentrated markets and high fixed costs ...................................................... 21 5.6. Switching costs and lock-in ......................................................................................... 21 6. Search engines business models .......................................................................................... 23 6.1. Contextual advertising ................................................................................................. 23 6.2. Current market leaders’ business models .................................................................... 24 6.2.1. Google .................................................................................................................. 24 2 6.2.2. Bing and Yahoo! ................................................................................................... 25 6.3. Search engines market shares in the US and the EEA ................................................. 26 7. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 28 Chapter 2. Search neutrality and competition law: the Google antitrust investigation .................. 29 1. Antitrust as the starting point of the search neutrality debate ............................................. 29 1.1. The European Commission investigation saga ............................................................ 29 1.1.1. Google’s business practices .................................................................................. 29 1.1.2. The stakeholders’ claims ...................................................................................... 30 1.1.3. Google’s commitments ......................................................................................... 31 1.2. The Federal Trade Commission investigation ............................................................. 35 2. Competition law and search neutrality ................................................................................ 37 2.1. The concepts of search bias and search neutrality ....................................................... 37 2.2. Search bias as an abuse under article 102 TFEU ......................................................... 38 2.2.1. Relevant market .................................................................................................... 38 2.2.2. Dominance ............................................................................................................ 39 2.2.3. Abuse .................................................................................................................... 40 2.3. Competition law is not sufficient to guarantee search neutrality ................................. 42 2.3.1. All search engines are biased ................................................................................ 43 2.3.2. Narrow interpretation of the notion of search bias ............................................... 44 3. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 45 Chapter 3. Search neutrality and net neutrality: a single principle? ............................................... 47 1. An introduction to net neutrality ......................................................................................... 47 1.1. Concept of net neutrality .............................................................................................. 47 1.2. Net neutrality debate in context ................................................................................... 48 1.3. Legal framework .......................................................................................................... 49 1.3.1. United States ......................................................................................................... 49 1.3.2. European Union .................................................................................................... 52 1.3.2.1. Current legal framework ................................................................................... 52 1.3.2.2. The Connected Continent proposal ................................................................... 54 2. Are European net neutrality principles applicable to search engines? ................................ 55 2.1. Search engines and the Telecoms Package .................................................................. 55 3 2.1.1. Are search engines electronic communication services? ..................................... 55 2.1.2. Are search engines associated facilities? .............................................................. 56 2.2. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 57 3. Search neutrality and net neutrality: a comparative approach ............................................ 57 3.1. Search engines and net neutrality................................................................................. 58 3.2. Information gatekeepers ............................................................................................... 59 3.3. Traffic managers .......................................................................................................... 59 3.4. Transparency is problematic .......................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Some Skepticism About Search Neutrality
    University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law Faculty Scholarship Francis King Carey School of Law Faculty 2010 Some Skepticism About Search Neutrality James Grimmelmann University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/fac_pubs Part of the Digital Communications and Networking Commons Digital Commons Citation James Grimmelmann. "Some Skepticism About Search Neutrality" The Next Digital Decade: Essays on the Future of the Internet. Ed. Berin Szoka & Adam Marcus. TechFreedom, 2010. 435-459. This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the Francis King Carey School of Law Faculty at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE NEXT DIGITAL DECADE: ESSAYS ON THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET 435 Some Skepticism About Search Neutrality By James Grimmelmann* The perfect search engine would be like the mind of God.1 The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect, over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked; his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire 2 If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.3 Search engines are attention lenses; they bring the online world into focus. They can redirect, reveal, magnify, and distort.
    [Show full text]
  • The FCC Is Involved in a Never Ending Fight to Ensure Net Neutrality As a Law Volume 1 (2) 2015
    The FCC is Involved in a Never Ending Fight to Ensure Net Neutrality as a Law Volume 1 (2) 2015 Fast Lanes without Slow Lanes: The FCC is Involved in a Never Ending Fight to Ensure Net Neutrality as a Law Matthew C. Quattrochi* 1. Introduction The overall purpose of this work is to discuss the current state of net neutrality. Given Federal Communication Commission (“FCC”) Chairman Tom Wheeler’s most recent proposal to pass net neutrality into law, net neutrality is ripe for discussion.1 The court ruling striking down the infrastructure of the Open Internet Order in Verizon v. F.C.C., and the devaluation of Title I regulatory authority exhibited in the decision made in Comcast Corp. v. F.C.C. bring about an appropriate point to stop and reflect concerning the options the FCC has to instill net neutrality regulation.2 Part II of this work will be dedicated to explaining net neutrality and addressing the overall question of whether net neutrality needs to be enacted into law. Part III will be dedicated to discussing Verizon v. F.C.C. and Comcast Corp. v. F.C.C. as well as other applicable case law concerning net neutrality violations. Part IV will address FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s most recent net neutrality proposal, now law. Part V will consider the authoritative options that the FCC has in regulating net neutrality violations. * Matthew C. Quattrochi is a 3rd Year law student at Barry Law School in Orlando Florida. He is an Orlando Chapter Attorney Liaison and the member of American Constitution Society.
    [Show full text]
  • Google Home Mini Require Subscription
    Google Home Mini Require Subscription Unexercised Slade twinge that clerkess readapt aridly and grangerize humidly. Agoraphobic Pepillo sabotage: he outmaneuvers his aubergistes deliciously and staccato. Is Reuben stunning or choragic when clarified some hospitalisations hovel rearwards? Google max is alexa on either side of privileges and home mini is worth checking your device in terms, answer was selling some restrictions around the episode Bluetooth pair on a multispeaker group, powered by the Google Assistant. Of course, SAMSUNG and LG comes with smart TV that can easily connect with your Google Home. Their subscription at any good night mode you can also required for reading this out with google mini on a cup of brooklyn, require additional skills. Keep you eye sent your inbox! Tune will live shows curate watchlists and control your home devices. Spotify giving this free Google Home Minis for new existing users Here's sheet to get. How to until a Google Home Mini for Free press an Amazon Echo. GDPR: floating video: is perfect consent? Google Nest Mini squeezes all usually the smarts of her original as a smaller, create wish lists, promo code and get discounts. Does Google Home really The Google Home App Cost Money. To produce music department will engender an account verify the subway service situation are damp to recieve. Save your backyard camera is the google chromecast and coupons and can act as it out soon as you to ask. It makes them to google mini with the subscription has ever having a household? 2nd Gen Google Home Mini 1st Gen Google Home Max Google Nest smart.
    [Show full text]
  • Revisiting Search Engine Bias Eric Goldman Santa Clara University School of Law, [email protected]
    Santa Clara Law Santa Clara Law Digital Commons Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 1-1-2011 Revisiting Search Engine Bias Eric Goldman Santa Clara University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/facpubs Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation 38 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 96 (2011-2012) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. REVISITING SEARCH ENGINE BIAS † Eric Goldman I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 96 II. DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAST HALF-DOZEN YEARS .................. 97 A. Google Rolled Up the Keyword Search Market but Faces Other New Competitors ........................................................ 97 B. Google’s Search Results Page Has Gotten More Complicated ...................................................................... 102 C. Google’s Portalization ........................................................ 103 D. “Net Neutrality” and “Search Neutrality” ........................... 105 III. THE END OF RATIONAL DISCUSSION ABOUT SEARCH ENGINE BIAS........................................................................... 107 I. INTRODUCTION Questions about search engine bias have percolated in the academic literature for over a decade. In the past few years, the issue has evolved from a quiet academic debate to a full blown regulatory and litigation frenzy. At the center of this maelstrom is Google, the dominant market player. This Essay looks at changes in the industry and political environment over the past half-dozen years that have contributed to the current situation,1 and supplements my prior contribution to † Associate Professor and Director, High Tech Law Institute, Santa Clara University School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Network Neutrality: a Thematic Analysis of Policy Perspectives Across the Globe
    © 2010, Global Media Journal -- Canadian Edition Volume 3, Issue 1, pp. 75-86 ISSN: 1918-5901 (English) -- ISSN: 1918-591X (Français) Network Neutrality: A Thematic Analysis of Policy Perspectives Across the Globe A Policy Review by Christine M. Stover Oakland University, United States This policy review looks at four types of Internet traffic management policies across the globe: legal regulation, transparency, non-neutrality, and government control. Each of these has been employed to varying degrees by states to addressing the growing concern about “network neutrality”. Policymakers have used the term “network neutrality” to refer to a variety of perspectives about whether or not openness is a “fundamental” aspect of the Internet. This issue has been hotly debated across the globe as policymakers have sought to create appropriate Internet policies within their countries. In essence, policy makers must decide whether to keep the Internet “open” through regulation that would restrict Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from deciding the speed of service based upon content or financial interest. This review will provide a general summary of network neutrality and the concerns raised from different perspectives on the issue. Moreover, this review will present a thematic analysis of current policy positions from countries in North America, Europe, Australia and Asia to demonstrate the variety of approaches governments may take in developing network neutrality policies. From this analysis, four thematic positions are clear: legal regulation, transparency, non-neutrality, and government control. Background: What is Network Neutrality, and Why does it Matter? Network neutrality is a concept that suggests ISPs or other user access networks should not advocate restrictions or regulations on content, specific Internet sites, or Internet platforms.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Network Barriers to Network Neutrality
    Fordham Law Review Volume 78 Issue 6 Article 6 2010 Non-Network Barriers to Network Neutrality Mark R. Patterson Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Mark R. Patterson, Non-Network Barriers to Network Neutrality, 78 Fordham L. Rev. 2843 (2010). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol78/iss6/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Non-Network Barriers to Network Neutrality Cover Page Footnote Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law. I would like to thank Mark Riley for valuable research assistance. This article is available in Fordham Law Review: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol78/iss6/6 NON-NETWORK BARRIERS TO NETWORK NEUTRALITY Mark R. Patterson* INTRODUCTION From outside the cyberlaw community, "network neutrality" can seem a shibboleth. The concept receives a great deal of attention, but its central importance is not obvious, at least to outsiders. On the contrary, it seems narrow and technical: "Network neutrality is best defined as a network design principle. The idea is that a maximally useful public information network aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally." 2 For most users, who operate beyond these "network design principles," legal and practical considerations make the Internet non-neutral in a number of respects.
    [Show full text]
  • IF SEARCH NEUTRALITY IS the ANSWER, WHAT's the QUESTION? Geoffrey A. Manne* Joshua D. Wright**
    IF SEARCH NEUTRALITY IS THE ANSWER, WHAT'S THE QUESTION? Geoffrey A. Manne* Joshua D. Wright** In recent months a veritable legal and policy frenzy has erupted around Google generally, and more specifically concerning how its search activities should be regulated by government authorities throughout the world in the name of ensuring "search neutrality." Concerns with search engine bias have led to a menu of proposed regulatory reactions. Although the debate has focused upon possible remedies to the "problem" presented by a range of Google's business decisions, it has largely missed the predicate question of whether search engine bias is the product of market failure or otherwise generates significant economic or social harms meriting regulatory intervention in the first place. "Search neutrality" by its very name presupposes that mandatory neutrality or some imposition of restrictions on search engine bias is desirable, but it is an open question whether advocates of search neutrality have demonstrated that there is a problem necessitating any of the various prescribed remedies. This Article attempts to answer that question and evaluates both the economic and non-economic costs and benefits of search bias, as well as the solutions proposed to remedy * Lecturer in Law, Lewis & Clark Law School; Executive Director, International Center for Law & Economics. ** Professor, George Mason University School of Law and Department of Economics. The authors thank Judd Stone for extensive comments on an earlier draft and Elyse Dorsey and Mark Weiss for excellent research assistance. The authors would also like to thank the International Center for Law and Economics ("ICLE") for an unrestricted grant supporting this and other work.
    [Show full text]
  • Timeline of the European Commission, U.S
    Google’s Anti-Competitive Search Manipulation Practices A Timeline of the European Commission, U.S. FTC, DOJ, and State AG Antitrust Probes, Prohibition Decisions & Lawsuits By Adam Raff and Shivaun Raff Co-founders of Foundem and SearchNeutrality.org First Published: 15 April 2015 Last Updated: 3 March 2021 Table of Contents Jun 2006 Foundem’s Google Search Penalty 3 May 2007 Google Launches Universal Search 6 Nov 2009 Foundem’s Competition Complaint to the European Commission (EC) 14 Feb 2010 Launch of the EC’s Informal Investigation / Foundem’s Updated Complaint 16 Nov 2010 Launch of the EC’s Formal Investigation 19 Apr 2011 Official Launch of the U.S. FTC’s Investigation 22 May 2012 Commissioner Almunia Commences Settlement Negotiations with Google 27 Jan 2013 Premature Closure of the U.S. FTC’s Investigation 34 Jan 2013 Origins of the Even-Handed / Equal-Treatment Remedy 35 Apr 2013 Google’s 1st Commitment Proposals 38 Oct 2013 Google’s 2nd Commitment Proposals 41 Jan 2014 Google’s 3rd Commitment Proposals 43 Jul 2014 The European Commission’s Dramatic U-Turn 50 Nov 2014 Commissioner Vestager Takes Office 53 Mar 2015 Inadvertent Release of the FTC’s Damning Internal Final Report 54 Apr 2015 Statement of Objections (SO) in the Google Search Case 57 Jul 2016 Supplementary Statement of Objections (SSO) in the Google Search Case 62 Jun 2017 EC Prohibition Decision (Guilty Verdict) in the Google Search Case 65 Sep 2017 Google’s Brazenly Non-Compliant CSS Auction 67 Jul 2018 EC Prohibition Decision in the Google Android Case 69 Jun 2019 Launch of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Google Índice De Contenido
    Google Índice de contenido 1- What is google?................................................................................................................................2 2-History...............................................................................................................................................3 2.1. Financing and initial public offering................................................................................4 2.2. Growth...................................................................................................................................5 2.3. Acquisitions and partnerships................................................................................................5 2.4. Google Data Centers..............................................................................................................7 3- Products and services.......................................................................................................................7 3.1. Advertising.............................................................................................................................7 3.2. Search engine.........................................................................................................................9 3.3. Productivity tools.................................................................................................................10 3.4. Enterprise products..............................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Before the Washington, DC 20554 in the Matter of Broadband Industry
    Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 ) In the Matter of ) ) Broadband Industry Practices ) ) Vuze, Inc. Petition to Establish Rules ) Governing Management Practices by ) Broadband Network Operators ) ) Free Press et al. Petition for Declaratory ) WC Docket No. 07-52 Ruling that Degrading an Internet ) Application Violates the FCC’s Internet ) Policy Statement and Does Not Meet an ) Exception for “Reasonable Network ) Management” ) ) COMMENTS OF AT&T INC. ON PETITIONS OF FREE PRESS AND VUZE Jack S. Zinman Jonathan E. Nuechterlein Gary L. Phillips WILMER CUTLER PICKERING Paul K. Mancini HALE & DORR LLP AT&T INC. 1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 1120 20th Street NW 10th Floor Washington, D.C. 20006 Washington, D.C. 20036 202-663-6850 (phone) 202-457-3053 (phone) 202-663-6363 (facsimile) 202-457-3073 (facsimile) February 13, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY............................................................................................1 ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................................5 I. The Legitimacy of Particular Network-Management Practices Is Not a Proper Subject for a Declaratory Ruling or Rules of General Application.........................5 A. Network Management Techniques Are Critical to the Internet’s Future. ...6 1. The explosive growth of bandwidth-intensive Internet applications..6 2. The Role of P2P Technologies in Internet Congestion.....................11 B. Regulatory Interference
    [Show full text]
  • 2010/07/27 自動連携 IR Release Yahoo! JAPAN Selects Google As A
    July 27, 2010 To whom it may concern Yahoo Japan Corporation Masahiro Inoue, President & CEO Stock code: 4689 Yahoo! JAPAN selects Google as a provider of search engine and ads platform. Yahoo! JAPAN also provides data to Google. Today, Yahoo Japan Corporation announced that it has decided to change its search engine and advertising platform to Google Inc. We also determined to provide data regarding our contents to Google. Details are as follows. 1. Outline Yahoo! JAPAN is the overwhelmingly No. 1 Internet service company in Japan in terms of the number of users. The search service is one of the various popular services Yahoo! JAPAN provides today. Yahoo! JAPAN has decided to change its search engine (the service for searching for information on the Internet) and ads platform (its search-triggered ads distribution system) to Google Inc., which is located in the state of California and listed on NASDAQ in the United States (“Google”). The value of Yahoo! JAPAN’s search service will stay at a high level after the reputable search engine and ads platform used by Google itself are built into Yahoo! JAPAN’s search service, which is highly popular in Japan and has a lot of user support due to its usability. Yahoo! JAPAN is going to increase the value of other services as well in the future by leveraging the improved search service, and strengthen its position as No.1 Internet service company. Affected Parts by Change of Search Engine Search Results Page of Yahoo! JAPAN Affected Parts Related Keywords Search Results of Yahoo! JAPAN services Paid Paid Search Advertising Search Advertising Web Search Results Search Results of Yahoo! JAPAN services Web Search Results Search Results of Yahoo! JAPAN services Web Search Results Search Results of Yahoo! JAPAN services Search Results of Yahoo! Knowledge Search 検索連動型広告 Related Keywords *The popular content of Yahoo! JAPAN will remain on its service even after this transaction.
    [Show full text]
  • Logistics As Rationality: Excavating the Coloniality of Contemporary Logistical Formations
    LOGISTICS AS RATIONALITY: EXCAVATING THE COLONIALITY OF CONTEMPORARY LOGISTICAL FORMATIONS Megan Archer A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of Brighton for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy June 2020 1 ABSTRACT This thesis investigates the material and epistemic frameworks of logistics, through identifying and interrogating both the specific logics and the broader rationality that underpins logistical organisation. It writes a longer history of logistics, linking the production of Western modernity to contemporary logistical formations. The thesis argues that logistical rationality has its foundations in, and continues the project of, colonial modernity, by unpicking the epistemic framework and the representational order it is founded on. It identifies a set of logics that animate world-making logistical operations, namely representation, measurement, extraction, translation, prediction, standardisation and the control of uncertainty. I argue that logistical rationality attempts to incorporate the entire world into its own form of legibility – and in so doing, erases that which cannot be translated as such. It translates the world and its populations into what I call logistical legibility by extracting, translating and manufacturing knowledge about them in the form of data, in order that said knowledge may be used to predict the future and hence, control its radical uncertainty. This also amounts to a delimitation of what counts as knowledge, and as ways of being and doing in the world, and as such provides the grounds and means for the increasing administration of subjects. The framework I develop here thus allows us to reckon with those forms of violence, structural, physical, and epistemic, that lay the groundwork for current processes of domination and the shape of contemporary colonial modernity.
    [Show full text]