Google says don’t shoot the messenger

Google Inc. is agitated that the Indian government may retain a provision in its Information Technology Act., that makes intermediaries such as ISPs (Internet Service Providers), website hosting companies, search engines, email services, social networks liable for illegal user content. See here the comments from a policy analyst at Google India.

Google has reasons to be worried about “intermediary liability”. Recently a cantankerous political party in Mumbai, called the Shiv Sena, demanded that Google’s social networking site, Orkut, should be banned in India, and prosecuted, after some users posted content considered defamatory of the party’s leader.

There is a precedent of sorts for that. In 2004, Avnish Bajaj, the then CEO of eBay’s Indian subsidiary was arrested in connection with the sale of a pornographic video clip on the online auction portal. Bajaj was arrested under the provisions of the Information Technology Act relating to intermediary liability.

I agree that intermediaries should not be held responsible for illegal content. Google’s policy analyst, Rishi Jaitly, says a telephone company is not held responsible if two people use a telephone call to plan a crime.

The argument about the telephone is specious and does not recognize that the times have changed. The content of a phone call between two housewives slandering somebody remains between the two, or if it spreads it will be a few persons at a time.

In contrast, because of the viral nature of content on the Internet, if somebody takes a young girl’s naked picture, using a spy camera, or he takes her face shot and adds someone else’s naked body to it, that picture will be all over the world in seconds.

By the time the aggrieved person discovers that it has happened, and reports it to Google, and then Google goes through its internal procedures to decide whether the content should be brought down or not, that picture will be all over the Internet, and the young lady’s honor and privacy in shambles.

Folks like Google and other Internet service providers have been pushing social networking and online communities without coming up with appropriate ways to counter misuse of these large-scale communication platforms. “It would be technologically infeasible for ISPs and web companies to pre-screen each and every bit of content being uploaded onto our platforms, especially as the amount of information coming online increases exponentially in India and around the world,” says the Google policy analyst.

Fair enough, but what this means is that technology innovation and new applications like social networking, touted as part of the brave new Web 2.0, have thrown up new problems. Like Google and a lot of other people, Indian Parliament's Standing Committee on Information Technology is also fumbling in search of a solution. Don’t blame them. Work with them, because as government they are more concerned about the individual. Perhaps the government worries that if intermediaries are not at all held liable for content, they may be more inclined to turn a blind eye to such content.

Instead Google decides to harangue the government with its self-serving view on Internet freedom and economic development. “More importantly, imposing such a burdensome standard (of intermediary liability) would crush innovation, throttle Indian competitiveness, and prevent entrepreneurs from deploying new services in the first place, a truly unfortunate outcome for the growth of the Internet in India,” says the Google policy analyst.

Internet growth is not the topmost priority for all people. More important to most of them is protecting their modesty and privacy, and that of their children.

Related article:

Internet reflects, nay amplifies social problems

Jajah shooed out of eBay

Internet telephony provider Jajah has been offering since last week “click-to-call” buttons that could be used by customers and friends to call subscribers toll-free. Jajah expected these buttons to go into online commerce sites, social networking sites, and yes auction sites like eBay.

On Thursday, however, the company’s plans seem to have run foul of eBay Inc., which owns another Internet telephony company, called Skype.

In some countries eBay informed Jajah sellers that the Jajah voice communication service is not allowed on the marketplace, according to release on Thursday by Jajah.

The release says that eBay's email to Jajah seller's states: "The listing was removed because it violated the eBay Inappropriate Links policy... links or other connections to live chat systems are not permitted."

EBay has not yet commented on this development, which on the face of it appears like a restrictive trade practice favoring eBay’s Skype.

On Monday, eBay, of San Jose, California, said it was taking a US$1.43 billion charge related to its acquisition of Skype, and said it may have paid extra for the buy.

While Jajah got positive feedback from within eBay in several countries, in other countries it saw eBay removing listings that contain Jajah buttons, said Jajah co-founder Roman Scharf. The company did not specify in which countries the Jajah buttons had been removed.

A spat with eBay could give Jajah much needed mileage and publicity, as it will be likely seen as the under-dog in the dispute.

Related Article:

Why does eBay need Skype

Why does eBay need Skype ?

Agreed that Skype under performed, that its quality can be sometimes quite indifferent. But what was eBay doing in the first place, paying US$2.6 billion for Skype, which was offering a service that was fast commoditized, in a market where competition was coming from multiple categories of players ?

It is not that Skype brought to eBay customers for its core auction business. Nor would auctioneers and bidders stop doing business on eBay if they couldn’t click-and-call through Skype. It is when a company starts wanting to own all the plumbing and fixtures, which is not part of its core business, that problems begin. Internet telephony is certainly not eBay’s core business.

On Monday, eBay, of San Jose, California, said it was taking a $1.43 billion charge related to the acquisition of Skype, according to a report in the International Herald Tribune.

Since the purchase in 2005, Skype's membership rolls have swelled past 220 million. But the company has not had as much success making money as it has had growing. Skype does not charge its users for calls to other Skype users. There is only a small fee for calls to landline numbers and cellphones, according to the International Herald Tribune.

In the event, Skype earned $90 million during the second quarter of 2007, far below eBay's projections.

Skype was one of the first movers in the pure-play VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) market, but its share of international VOIP traffic was in 2006 smaller than that of the international carriers it was expected to displace, according to TeleGeography, a research division of PriMetrica Inc. While the volume of international traffic routed via Skype was significant, the quantity was still small when compared to a global switched and VoIP traffic base of 264 billion minutes, it said in a report. Computer-to-computer traffic between Skype users in 2005 was equivalent to 2.9 percent of international carrier traffic in 2005 and approximately 4.4 percent of total international traffic in 2006.

The company’s business is said to have flagged because of less-than expected business in its paid VOIP calls business to landline and mobile phones, even as Skype-to-Skype calls boomed.

It appears that VOIP services offered by carriers, and PSTN calls, continue to dominate the market, despite forecasts that VOIP would ease out PSTN. It may be true that VOIP, because it is cheaper, will progressively ease out PSTN. But the new business will probably go to the large carriers who have the capital to invest in infrastructure, an existing stable customer base, and existing originating and terminating connections for calls.

That is why we have a new crop of VOIP service providers that prefer to work with the big telcos, providing the VOIP piece, while originating calls and terminating calls through the telcos. “ We put money in the telcos pockets. We wouldn’t have fight with the telcos because they are established and strong,” a Jajah Inc. executive told Network World some months ago.

The success of pure play VOIP is as yet not certain. TMCnet reports that Paul Budde Communication, an independent global telecommunications research and consultancy company, has released a report, called 2007 North America — Telecoms, Broadband and Mobile Statistics, which points out that North American cable providers are reaping the benefits of a consumer market looking for less expensive phone service coupled with added features and ease of billing.

The competition to pure-play VOIP service providers is hence multi-pronged.

Which brings me back to my question – what is eBay doing slugging it out in the patently unpredictable VOIP market. What benefits does it expect from deviating from its core online auction business ?

To be sure, some auctioneers may like to have “click-to-call” features on eBay. But eBay needn’t have bought a large VOIP firm to deliver that. Whether eBay encourages it or not, any number of VOIP players are offering click-to-call “buttons” and other services on eBay, social networks, blogs, wherever you want. In the end they meet eBay’s fond desire to offer click-to-call. But first eBay may have to spit out Skype to folks more at ease, and street smarter in the VOIP market.