8 ms·

>But no, because Comcast has -bribed- donated to way more congresspeople than Google... Lobbying is tracked and google spent over 33% more than Comcast - in yo

>But no, because Comcast has -bribed- donated to way more congresspeople than Google... Lobbying is tracked and google spent over 33% more than Comcast - in your own words - bribing members of Congress. The bulk of Google’s lobbying expenditure was for immigration, tax reform and antitrust. I’d say Google’s far better “at playing the game” after all no one is randomly sticking up for Comcast.

savethefuture 8y ago
Can you please provide source links to this 33%? I assume it is public info but where do I find that.
- will_brown 8y ago
  Opensecrets.org will let you search public companies lobbying spend (and other info). Or you can un-ironically google “google lobbying” and find more detailed articles about Google’s lobbying published by time, fortune, Bloomberg, etc...
  - rayvy 8y ago
    By "spent more money on congress people" @psadauskas is not simply just referring to "who spent more money last year", he's implying that the foothole that a Comcast or a Verizon has in the capitol goes much further than say a Google. And that makes since right? Especially from a government's perspective. If you can be chummy with an ISP, you hardly need the help of a downstream application builder (e.g., Google). His statement still holds
psadauskas 8y ago
You're right, I should have checked the facts before speculating on which company spent more on lobbying. However, the things they are lobbying for/against also matter. As a recent example, Net Neutrality involved massive amounts of lobbing and had very clear "pro-consumer" and "anti-consumer" sides. From https://www.opensecrets.org/news/issues/net_neutrality/ https://www.opensecrets.org/news/issues/net_neutrality/ > Not only was Google the pro-net neutrality organization that spent the most on lobbying in 2014 — $16.8 million in 2014 — it was the 10th biggest spender on federal lobbying that year. Impressive as that sounds, however, it still ranked behind both Comcast and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association. And it seems like every dollar that Comcast spends lobbying is directed towards efforts that will have a negative impact on my life, and the lives of everyone not on Comcast's board of directors. At least with Google, sometimes our incentives align, so that's another point in favor of attempting to break up the Comcast monopoly before the Google one.
- giggles_giggles 8y ago
  >As a recent example, Net Neutrality involved massive amounts of lobbing and had very clear "pro-consumer" and "anti-consumer" sides This isn't as uncontroversial of an opinion as it might appear to be in a place like HN. What you're admitting here basically is that you think Comcast should be broken up because they lobby for things you don't like, but FAANG is fine because they lobby for things you do.
  - psadauskas 8y ago
    No, you're putting words in my mouth, or misunderstanding my point. > you think Comcast should be broken up I think efforts to break up tech monopolies should first be focused on telecommunication companies. > because they lobby for things you don't like, Not just me, but are objectively harmful to 99% of the people they would affect > but FAANG is fine because they lobby for things you do. I'm mostly focusing on Google here, and yes, they at least occasionally lobby for things I like because sometimes their interests and the interests of the public in general happen to align. With Comcast (and other ISPs), you have only one choice, and they spend tons of money and effort making sure you only have that one choice, and continue to have only that one choice. Comcast recently spent nearly $1M to prevent Fort Collins from creating a municipal ISP[1]. That is actively anti-competitive and monopolistic by definition. [1]: https://muninetworks.org/content/totals-are-comcast-spends-900k-fort-collins-election https://muninetworks.org/content/totals-are-comcast-spends-9...
    - rayiner 8y ago
      > With Comcast (and other ISPs), you have only one choice, and they spend tons of money and effort making sure you only have that one choice, and continue to have only that one choice. Comcast recently spent nearly $1M to prevent Fort Collins from creating a municipal ISP[1]. That is actively anti-competitive and monopolistic by definition. I'm sure if the U.S. government was proposing to sell public bonds to build a search engine or ride-sharing service, you'd see a lot of lobbying from Silicon Valley. It's not "actively anti-competitive and monopolistic by definition" to oppose government backed and funded competition in your industry.
CamperBob2 8y ago
Lobbying is tracked and google spent over 33% more than Comcast - in your own words - bribing members of Congress. Probably because they saw what happened when Microsoft tried to ignore Washington, DC. altogether. Can you blame Google for realizing that they couldn't just turn their backs on the game?
- metamet 8y ago
  It's an unfortunate side effect of the current system. Either no one should be able to influence legislation, or you're going to be negatively impacted by choosing not to. That said, I'm in favor of the former. Citizens United has been a pox on representatives representing their constituents, which has made lobbying all the more effective and easy.
- rayiner 8y ago
  Google has long used lobbying for business objectives. For example, because Google profits from being a middle man for content created by other people, Google has lobbied for weaker copyright protections. Joel Splosky calls this "commoditizing your complement": https://www.gwern.net/Complement https://www.gwern.net/Complement, and it explains Google's political positions to a tee. The idea that they were "forced" into it is wishful rationalization.
  - CamperBob2 8y ago
    That's one perspective. Another school of thought says that both the extent and duration of copyright protection is counterproductive if not batshit insane, and lobbying for copyright liberalization benefits almost everyone regardless of the underlying motivation.
enraged_camel 8y ago
>>Lobbying is tracked and google spent over 33% more than Comcast - in your own words - bribing members of Congress. That's just members of Congress. What about local governments? Keep in mind a lot of states don't have laws that require publicly disclosing lobbying efforts.
tha_nose 8y ago
To be fair, google spends more than comcast because google, along with facebook, are constantly being attacked by the media and special interest groups. If comcast was being attacked everyday, they would hike their lobbying budget. I wouldn't say google is better at playing the game than comcast. Comcast has been playing the game for decades and they have far more political clout than google. It's funny how people underestimate the power of comcast. They own nbc, msnbc, cnbc, universal, sky and a significant portion of the internet connections as a major ISP provider. Google is a joke compared to comcast in terms of political power and influence.
dajohnson89 8y ago
curious: Do you think tech giants' lobbying is responsible for the recent shift in allowing more highly-skilled H1B visa holders to enter USA? it would, i imagine, lower the companies' cost of labor.
anth_anm 8y ago
Google learned from Microsoft's mistake. You pay your bribes or the justice department comes knocking. Google made antitrust investigations just vanish into thin air.
- paulddraper 8y ago
  I am puzzled to this day how IE + Windows was a monopoly but Android + Chrome is not.
sytelus 8y ago
This "tracked" lobbying is drop in the dark matter of political money. There are huge numbers of "career" congressman with disproportionate amount of wealth even though their only supposedly legal income was less than $200K. Magic? You don't get private dinners with presidents with just legal lobbying money. https://www.rollcall.com/news/hawkings/congress-richer-ever-mostly-top https://www.rollcall.com/news/hawkings/congress-richer-ever-...
JVIDEL 8y ago
Yep, and given their data mining capabilities google is far more dangerous. Tbh they shouldn't own Android and YouTube, those companies should be spin off from alphabet.

savethefuture 8y ago

Can you please provide source links to this 33%? I assume it is public info but where do I find that.

will_brown 8y ago
Opensecrets.org will let you search public companies lobbying spend (and other info). Or you can un-ironically google “google lobbying” and find more detailed articles about Google’s lobbying published by time, fortune, Bloomberg, etc...
- rayvy 8y ago
  By "spent more money on congress people" @psadauskas is not simply just referring to "who spent more money last year", he's implying that the foothole that a Comcast or a Verizon has in the capitol goes much further than say a Google. And that makes since right? Especially from a government's perspective. If you can be chummy with an ISP, you hardly need the help of a downstream application builder (e.g., Google). His statement still holds

psadauskas 8y ago

You're right, I should have checked the facts before speculating on which company spent more on lobbying. However, the things they are lobbying for/against also matter. As a recent example, Net Neutrality involved massive amounts of lobbing and had very clear "pro-consumer" and "anti-consumer" sides. From https://www.opensecrets.org/news/issues/net_neutrality/ https://www.opensecrets.org/news/issues/net_neutrality/ > Not only was Google the pro-net neutrality organization that spent the most on lobbying in 2014 — $16.8 million in 2014 — it was the 10th biggest spender on federal lobbying that year. Impressive as that sounds, however, it still ranked behind both Comcast and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association. And it seems like every dollar that Comcast spends lobbying is directed towards efforts that will have a negative impact on my life, and the lives of everyone not on Comcast's board of directors. At least with Google, sometimes our incentives align, so that's another point in favor of attempting to break up the Comcast monopoly before the Google one.

giggles_giggles 8y ago
>As a recent example, Net Neutrality involved massive amounts of lobbing and had very clear "pro-consumer" and "anti-consumer" sides This isn't as uncontroversial of an opinion as it might appear to be in a place like HN. What you're admitting here basically is that you think Comcast should be broken up because they lobby for things you don't like, but FAANG is fine because they lobby for things you do.
- psadauskas 8y ago
  No, you're putting words in my mouth, or misunderstanding my point. > you think Comcast should be broken up I think efforts to break up tech monopolies should first be focused on telecommunication companies. > because they lobby for things you don't like, Not just me, but are objectively harmful to 99% of the people they would affect > but FAANG is fine because they lobby for things you do. I'm mostly focusing on Google here, and yes, they at least occasionally lobby for things I like because sometimes their interests and the interests of the public in general happen to align. With Comcast (and other ISPs), you have only one choice, and they spend tons of money and effort making sure you only have that one choice, and continue to have only that one choice. Comcast recently spent nearly $1M to prevent Fort Collins from creating a municipal ISP[1]. That is actively anti-competitive and monopolistic by definition. [1]: https://muninetworks.org/content/totals-are-comcast-spends-900k-fort-collins-election https://muninetworks.org/content/totals-are-comcast-spends-9...
  - rayiner 8y ago
    > With Comcast (and other ISPs), you have only one choice, and they spend tons of money and effort making sure you only have that one choice, and continue to have only that one choice. Comcast recently spent nearly $1M to prevent Fort Collins from creating a municipal ISP[1]. That is actively anti-competitive and monopolistic by definition. I'm sure if the U.S. government was proposing to sell public bonds to build a search engine or ride-sharing service, you'd see a lot of lobbying from Silicon Valley. It's not "actively anti-competitive and monopolistic by definition" to oppose government backed and funded competition in your industry.

CamperBob2 8y ago

Lobbying is tracked and google spent over 33% more than Comcast - in your own words - bribing members of Congress. Probably because they saw what happened when Microsoft tried to ignore Washington, DC. altogether. Can you blame Google for realizing that they couldn't just turn their backs on the game?

metamet 8y ago
It's an unfortunate side effect of the current system. Either no one should be able to influence legislation, or you're going to be negatively impacted by choosing not to. That said, I'm in favor of the former. Citizens United has been a pox on representatives representing their constituents, which has made lobbying all the more effective and easy.
rayiner 8y ago
Google has long used lobbying for business objectives. For example, because Google profits from being a middle man for content created by other people, Google has lobbied for weaker copyright protections. Joel Splosky calls this "commoditizing your complement": https://www.gwern.net/Complement https://www.gwern.net/Complement, and it explains Google's political positions to a tee. The idea that they were "forced" into it is wishful rationalization.
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  That's one perspective. Another school of thought says that both the extent and duration of copyright protection is counterproductive if not batshit insane, and lobbying for copyright liberalization benefits almost everyone regardless of the underlying motivation.

enraged_camel 8y ago

>>Lobbying is tracked and google spent over 33% more than Comcast - in your own words - bribing members of Congress. That's just members of Congress. What about local governments? Keep in mind a lot of states don't have laws that require publicly disclosing lobbying efforts.

tha_nose 8y ago

To be fair, google spends more than comcast because google, along with facebook, are constantly being attacked by the media and special interest groups. If comcast was being attacked everyday, they would hike their lobbying budget. I wouldn't say google is better at playing the game than comcast. Comcast has been playing the game for decades and they have far more political clout than google. It's funny how people underestimate the power of comcast. They own nbc, msnbc, cnbc, universal, sky and a significant portion of the internet connections as a major ISP provider. Google is a joke compared to comcast in terms of political power and influence.

dajohnson89 8y ago

curious: Do you think tech giants' lobbying is responsible for the recent shift in allowing more highly-skilled H1B visa holders to enter USA? it would, i imagine, lower the companies' cost of labor.

anth_anm 8y ago

Google learned from Microsoft's mistake. You pay your bribes or the justice department comes knocking. Google made antitrust investigations just vanish into thin air.

paulddraper 8y ago
I am puzzled to this day how IE + Windows was a monopoly but Android + Chrome is not.

sytelus 8y ago

This "tracked" lobbying is drop in the dark matter of political money. There are huge numbers of "career" congressman with disproportionate amount of wealth even though their only supposedly legal income was less than $200K. Magic? You don't get private dinners with presidents with just legal lobbying money. https://www.rollcall.com/news/hawkings/congress-richer-ever-mostly-top https://www.rollcall.com/news/hawkings/congress-richer-ever-...

JVIDEL 8y ago

Yep, and given their data mining capabilities google is far more dangerous. Tbh they shouldn't own Android and YouTube, those companies should be spin off from alphabet.