Tesla Supercharger V3 rollout will prioritize long-distance routes, says Elon Musk - Teslarati

By Dacia J. Ferris

Posted on June 3, 2019

Tesla’s Version 3 (V3) Superchargers will first begin rolling out in locations used for long-distance travel, according to an update provided by CEO Elon Musk. He additionally revealed during a recent interview on Ride the Lightning, a weekly podcast hosted by Ryan McCaffrey, that first generation Superchargers will also be prioritized for replacement.

“We’ll focus on long-distance routes, so if you’re in a hurry to get from one city to another, you can go as fast as possible. Then also, we’re replacing some of the Version 1 Superchargers – some of the old Superchargers will take priority,” Musk detailed. “There are some out there that still charge at 75 kW, so we’ll replace those first on long-distance routes.”

Despite Tesla’s open patents for utilizing its Supercharger technology and declared willingness to allow other manufacturers to access its network, Musk said that he hasn’t yet been contacted yet about sharing its facilities and technology. “Nobody’s contacted me, so…Maybe they’ve contacted other people at the company and they haven’t mentioned it to me. But, none of the other manufacturers have contacted me and said that they want to use it,” he explained.

Tesla Supercharger V3 stalls being constructed at the LA Design Center in March 2019.

Tesla does have preconditions for sharing its Supercharger Network, though, which may be part of the reluctance to taking the all-electric car maker up on its offer. “We do require that the car be able to charge at a high rate and then obviously share in the cost of the system,” Musk said. “Probably…we will get some takers down the road, but they don’t seem to be particularly interested right now.”

On the topic of developing its Supercharger Network, Tesla’s CEO also explained that the company tries to stay ahead of demand and avoid congestion, but empty Supercharger stations are not in the company’s best interest, either. Also, business permits can slow down expansion efforts despite Tesla’s best efforts to meet its customers’ charging needs. Overall, it’s a balancing act between congestion and freedom to travel.

The V3 Supercharger was unveiled in March this year at Tesla’s factory in Fremont, California where the first (beta) stalls are located. The V3 Superchargers are able to charge twice as fast the Version 2 (V2) with a maximum power output of 250 kW, or 1,000 miles per hour. Additionally, Tesla owners using V3 Superchargers will no longer need to split power with neighboring vehicles, thereby substantially increasing the charge rate and reducing the overall amount of charging time by nearly half.

In Tesla’s first annual report to New York’s Empire State Development Corp., the company announced that a new manufacturing line for the electrical components of Supercharger V3 stations were added at Gigafactory 2 in New York. The facility was originally designed to produce Tesla’s Solar Roof tiles, which look like conventional roofing material but are capable of functioning like solar panels. Given Tesla’s aggressive expansion of its Supercharger Network, this move towards expanded capability is indicative of plans for a quick rollout of its latest charging technology.

Listen to Ryan McCaffrey’s interview with Elon Musk here.

Tesla Supercharger V3 rollout will prioritize long-distance routes, says Elon Musk

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-supercharger-v3-rollout-long-distance-stations/

2019-06-03 07:03:33Z
52780307364482

Infineon acquires Cypress Semiconductor in deal valued at $10 billion - VentureBeat

Infineon Technologies has agreed to buy Cypress Semiconductor in a deal that values the chip maker at $10 billion.

Infineon is paying $23.85 per share in cash ($10 billion enterprise value, counting debt) in addition to continuing its dividend through closing. That’s 55 percent higher than the stock price was last week before the news started to leak.

The deal shows that trend toward consolidation of the chip industry — which has swallowed many Silicon Valley companies from Altera to NXP — is continuing.

The stock price represents an-all time high for Cypress, and it’s a nice way for a legendary Silicon Valley to go out in style.

Cypress was founded in 1982 by T.J. Rodgers, a Green Bay Packers fan who was also brilliant chip engineer. He helped Cypress rise from an also-ran to a skilled maker of a wide variety of memory, sensor, and Internet of Things chips.

Above: T.J. Rodgers of Cypress Semiconductor

Image Credit: Cypress/Wikipdia

Early to recognize the value of improved solar cells made from silicon, Rodgers invested in SunPower in 2002 and later helped it launch an initial public offering in 2005. Cypress got a big return on that deal.

But Cypress was known for its larger-than-life founder, who said outrageous things (like “real men have fabs”) and yet was known as a smart and fiercely independent libertarian. Regarding fabs, or wafer fabrication plants (chip factories), Rodgers was adamant that owning your own factories was the path to success in semiconductors. (That eventually proved to be wrong). Rodgers’ firm grew to thousands of employees.

Rodgers stepped down in 2016 and was replaced by but he was an activist shareholder within Cypress. He set a personal goal of creating the best pinot noir in the world at his vineyard in the Santa Cruz Mountains. I walked through his vineyard once, when it was equipped with some of the early monitoring equipment for the internet of things. We laughed as he told tales of getting the Cypress staff to (voluntarily) come pick his grapes.

In the 1980s and 1990s, Rodgers was known as the toughest boss in Silicon Valley, always holding executives and employees accountable. He said he liked corporations to set “big, hairy, audacious goal,” or BHAGs, so they could always achieve higher results. When I was still at the San Jose Mercury News,

At the time of the acquisition, Cypress was valued at 18.2 times NTM EBITDA ( a measure of profitability).

The companies expect the transaction to close by the end of 2019 or early 2020.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://venturebeat.com/2019/06/02/infineon-acquires-cypress-semiconductor-in-deal-valued-at-10-billion/

2019-06-03 05:52:18Z
CAIiEHbHAYyQ8It_U_AwedYLRiUqEwgEKgwIACoFCAowsGkw8AYwgxM

To Some Solar Users, Power Company Fees Are An Unfair Charge - NPR

Enlarge this image

T.K. Thorne says the $20 monthly solar fee she pays to Alabama Power will double the time it will take to pay off her rooftop solar system. Julia Simon for NPR hide caption

toggle caption

Julia Simon for NPR

In Alabama's Blount County, off the highway, down a dirt road and up a hill is writer T.K. Thorne's house. She points to her roof and a shining row of black solar panels.

It's a 4-kilowatt system — pretty typical for residential solar — and Thorne got it almost four years ago hoping to help the environment and reduce her electricity bill.

It was a big investment — $8,400 even after a federal tax break. Thorne estimated how long it would take to pay off the solar system, installed the panels, and began waiting for the savings to begin.

But then she found out about a monthly $5-per-kilowatt solar fee from the state's largest utility, Alabama Power.

"That's $20 a month," Thorne says. While that doesn't sound like a lot of money, she says, it will double the time it will take her to pay off the system.

Because of the fee, 65-year-old Thorne says it'll take almost two decades to pay back her panels.

"Yes," she says and laughs, "I may not be alive."

Green energy groups say this solar fee is a key reason why, according to Wood Mackenzie and the Solar Energy Industries Association, Alabama comes in 48th out of 50 states in residential solar capacity. (North Dakota and South Dakota trail Alabama).

Alabama Power spokesman Michael Sznajderman says there's a good reason for the fee: If a customer's rooftop solar panels don't provide enough energy, Alabama Power's still on the hook for backup electricity.

"There is a cost to have backup power service available to customers who demand it," he says.

Other regulated utilities across the U.S. have proposed residential solar fees. And New Mexico had one but got rid of it; Wisconsin is currently considering one.

And while there are fees in Arizona, Kansas and Texas, Alabama Power's backup fee seems to be in a class of its own. It currently has the highest backup fee based on the size of the residential solar system of any regulated utility in the U.S. That's according to data from the North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Center, which produces the 50 States of Solar report, as well as the National Regulatory Research Institute.

"How is that possibly the best they could do from a cost perspective when regulated utilities in other states do much better?" asks Gautam Gowrisankaran, a public service professor of economics at the University of Arizona.

He says Alabama Power is overcharging its solar customers in a couple of ways. First, solar customers in Alabama get paid a lot less for making solar energy than customers in other states.

On top of that, Alabama solar customers are paying for backup power in their regular bills, and paying an extra backup power fee. Gowrisankaran says he thinks this means Alabama's solar customers might be paying the utility twice.

"The bottom line is that ultimately they seem to be double counting — double charging essentially for the costs of backup generation," he says.

Alabama Power says there's no double-charging — it's simply covering backup costs. It notes that another payment option for solar customers doesn't include the backup fee, but critics say that ends up being even more expensive.

The Southern Environmental Law Center has filed a complaint with the state regulator, the Alabama Public Service Commission. The center is asking to get rid of the backup fee, saying it's unjust for solar customers like Thorne. Alabama Power wants the regulator to dismiss the complaint, and wants to increase the monthly fee from $5 to $5.42 per kilowatt.

Keith Johnston, who leads the law center's Birmingham office, says what's going on in Alabama should concern people across America because it goes to the heart of how utilities have been charging for power for more than 100 years.

"The traditional model of the utility is that ... they build large power generation systems such as coal-fired power plants or dams, and they have a captive audience that has to buy that energy," he says.

Today, though, homeowners have the option to install solar panels on their rooftops and become power generators themselves.

"Solar is a real disruptor because it allows people to create their own energy, and so the utilities typically get very nervous about that," Johnston says. "One way they can thwart that is to increase the cost to have one of those systems on your home."

Now, following the complaint, the Alabama Public Service Commission will decide if the solar fee is fair. In the meantime, if any of Thorne's neighbors ask her if it's worth it to get solar, she tells them, no. Not in Alabama Power territory.

Julia Simon is a regular contributor to NPR's Planet Money. You can also hear her on the NPR business desk and the NPR podcasts Code Switch and Rough Translation.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/02/728761703/to-some-solar-users-power-company-fees-are-an-unfair-charge

2019-06-02 21:24:27Z
CAIiEG4V3gJc8Ar7UHXrVowA26UqFggEKg4IACoGCAow9vBNMK3UCDCvpUk

Google's Scrutiny by Justice Department Has Been Building - The Wall Street Journal

Google is dominant in myriad areas of technology, to the point where the Justice Department is preparing to investigate it on antitrust grounds. Here, the auditorium at the company’s office in Berlin. Photo: Krisztian Bocsi/Bloomberg News

By

Brent Kendall,

Brent Kendall
The Wall Street Journal
• Biography
• @brkend
• Brent.Kendall@wsj.com

John D. McKinnon and

John D. McKinnon
The Wall Street Journal
• Biography
• @johndmckinnon
• John.McKinnon@wsj.com

Keach Hagey

Keach Hagey
The Wall Street Journal
• Biography
• @keachhagey
• keach.hagey
• Keach.Hagey@wsj.com

June 2, 2019 10:41 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON—The Justice Department’s plans to investigate Alphabet Inc.’s GOOG -1.28% Google have been building over time, amid a growing public conversation about whether the government should do more to scrutinize the handful of giant tech firms that dominate the U.S. landscape.

The department’s antitrust division and the Federal Trade Commission, which share federal antitrust enforcement authority, have sent a variety of signals that they were eager to explore cutting-edge questions about how big tech is affecting the competitive landscape.

While the FTC in February announced a new task force to consider tech competition, the Justice Department has been planning its approach behind the scenes, while also holding public events to educate its staff and the public about the contours of the tech debate.

The department last July hosted a speech by Franklin Foer, author of “World Without Mind: The Existential Threat of Big Tech,” a book that raises alarm bells about Google and other tech giants that have built their dominance on the collection and use of big data.

“There’s so much hanging in the balance when we talk about their size and dominance. And therefore so much is resting in your hands,” Mr. Foer told the Justice Department audience.

“It’s something we should all be thinking about,” Justice Department antitrust chief Makan Delrahim said in opening remarks during Mr. Foer’s appearance.

“ Having that 800-pound gorilla on your side is a big advantage ”

—Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry

A couple of months later, the department met with a group of state attorneys general, including both Republicans and Democrats, who have raised concerns about big-tech dominance and tech-firm practices on issues like privacy. The two sides pledged to continue talking.

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, a Republican, said it was encouraging that the department now seems to be moving.

“Getting them to the table is going to really help accelerate the things that AGs on both sides of the aisle want to do,” Mr. Landry said. “Having that 800-pound gorilla on your side is a big advantage.”

In March, the department presented a speech by tech investor Roger McNamee, who has been deeply critical of Facebook Inc. and Google. And last month it held a public workshop exploring competition issues in advertising, including digital advertising, an issue that is likely to be a key piece of the Google probe, according to people familiar with the matter.

The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that the Justice Department is gearing up for an antitrust probe of Google. Out of public view, it built plans for an investigation while it worked out turf issues with the FTC. The commission conducted a broad U.S. probe of Google that ended in 2013 without enforcement action; this time, the department directly asked to be the agency to conduct an investigation, and the FTC agreed, people familiar with the matter said. That allowed Justice to begin moving forward in earnest.

Google critics, including rival businesses, that had been lodging complaints with the FTC are now being sent to the Justice Department instead, the people familiar with the matter said, adding that some have been in contact with the department already and others will be soon.

News Corp , which owns The Wall Street Journal, has complained about Google’s business practices to regulators in multiple countries.

The department is aiming to explore how Google uses its dominant position in search across a broad range of its businesses and whether the company exerts its market power unfairly to squelch smaller rivals whose innovations could make them competitive threats to Google, the people said. Justice Department officials, they said, have expressed an interest in a broad range of markets, from Google’s Android smartphone operating system to its third-party digital ad business, where Google is both a giant platform for selling ads on sites across the web and a dominant conduit for marketers to purchase online ads.

Google has grown to its current size and influence largely through its dominance in online search and its ability to leverage its search function into a massive advertising business. In addition, the company’s Android smartphone operating system has become even more widely used than Apple Inc.’s , allowing it to become a powerful force in the mobile revolution. Its YouTube unit has become a huge source of online video. New ventures into self-driving vehicles, artificial intelligence and other technologies could extend Google’s dominance.

Underlying many of those concerns is the vast array of data the company compiles.

Still, there is an active debate over Google’s dominance. While critics complain that Google has too much power over users and businesses on the internet, and even over society and politics, defenders believe many of those concerns are exaggerated, and they question whether antitrust law is the best way to address them; some argue that market forces will balance the equation over time.

Despite the FTC’s handling of the prior Google probe, the Justice Department does have previous experience of its own with Google. The department’s antitrust division in 2008 effectively torpedoed a planned Google partnership with Yahoo ; the company walked away from the deal after the department indicated it would challenge the pact.

The department in 2011 allowed Google to acquire flight-data company ITA Software, though it imposed conditions on the deal.

Google critics spent the weekend trying to make sense of how the department’s next chapter with the company might unfold.

“For the good of consumers and competition on the internet, we welcome any renewed interest by U.S. regulators into Google’s anticompetitive behavior,” said Stephen Kaufer, chief executive of TripAdvisor, a travel-review website that has long complained about the company.

But others doubted that the Trump administration would circumscribe what they view as Google’s anticompetitive practices. “Holding dominant platforms accountable for anticompetitive conduct is imperative, but I don’t have a lot of faith that President Trump’s Justice Department will stand up for working people against powerful corporations like Google and Facebook,” said Rep. David Cicilline (D., R.I.), who chairs a House antitrust subcommittee.

Write to Brent Kendall at brent.kendall@wsj.com, John D. McKinnon at john.mckinnon@wsj.com and Keach Hagey at keach.hagey@wsj.com

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/googles-scrutiny-by-justice-department-has-been-building-11559486464

2019-06-02 14:41:00Z
CAIiELdia9SIiwjI8EgQDrVgOsMqGAgEKg8IACoHCAow1tzJATDnyxUw-aS0AQ

Google Is at the Center of a Storm Brewing Over Big Tech - The New York Times

SAN FRANCISCO — Google, one of the most successful companies in history, has generally gotten its way with American regulators. That may be changing.

Politicians on the right and left are decrying the tech company’s enormous power. President Trump and other Republicans have focused on whether the company’s online search results are biased. Democrats have focused on whether the company stifles competition. And now, the Justice Department is exploring an investigation of the advertising and search firm, according to several people with knowledge of the discussions.

It is a small and preliminary step, and it could easily come to nothing. But if the agency pursues a case, it will almost certainly inspire reams of bad publicity, promote consumer distrust, sink employee morale and remind everyone that Google, with its early motto of “Don’t be evil,” held itself to standards it sometimes could not match.

A prospect that should really worry Google is a replay of the government’s case against Microsoft in the 1990s. Microsoft did not have to break itself into two, which was the government’s goal. But the company was distracted for at least a decade, which allowed space for start-ups like Google. Microsoft’s reputation took a dive.

“The damage to the monopolist’s position comes from the public airing of the facts,” said Gary Reback, a Silicon Valley lawyer who was instrumental in the case against Microsoft and has worked with companies that argue they have suffered unfair competition from Google.

Even without a formal government investigation, Google’s reputation started to fray over the weekend as politicians jumped on the news.

“It’s time to fight back,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a popular condender for the Democratic nomination for president. Senators Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, and Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, each said the scrutiny was overdue.

The White House did not respond to questions about whether the president would support an investigation by the Justice Department. But according to two people familiar with his thinking, Mr. Trump would probably welcome any action.

Mr. Trump, like many other Republicans, has repeatedly complained publicly that Google suppresses positive news about conservatives in search results. He has also criticized big tech companies like Amazon, Facebook and Twitter.

Google, whose parent company is Alphabet, declined to comment, as did representatives for the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission.

Like Amazon, Apple and Facebook, Google is awash in cash, data and ambition, and increasingly controversial. The F.T.C. announced in February an antitrust task force to look at the technology field. But in an unusual move, the commission has now agreed to give oversight of Google to the Justice Department. That puts pressure on the department’s head of antitrust, Makan Delrahim, to follow through with a robust investigation.

In the past, Mr. Delrahim has said that “credible evidence” would need to exist before antitrust officials would step in. Inside the White House, broader discussions about regulating Google have not taken place, one of the people close to Mr. Trump said Saturday. But that person said that Mr. Delrahim had built up “a lot of authority” in the Trump administration, and that there would be comfort with what the agency recommends.

In exchange for the Justice Department’s claim over the antitrust issues related to Google, the F.T.C. took over antitrust oversight of Amazon, according to two people familiar with the decision.

The online retailing giant has been criticized for using its massive online sales site to edge out competitors and harm third-party sellers that use the platform to sell goods. Amazon has argued it was not a monopoly in retail and that Walmart and other companies made up a big chunk of the retail market.

The decision to divide antitrust oversight of the two tech giants was part of negotiations a few weeks ago between the agencies’ antitrust divisions. To avoid overlap, the agencies routinely negotiate to determine which one will take on merger reviews and antitrust cases.

The two people familiar with the decision said that the decision to divide responsibilities over the two companies is a nascent step toward antitrust scrutiny of Google and Amazon.

The oversight of Amazon was earlier reported by The Washington Post.

It is unclear what the F.T.C. will explore in its scrutiny of Amazon and it does not appear that the agency has started a formal investigation into the company, the two people said.

The F.T.C. is near the end of negotiations with Facebook about the size of a fine for violating a 2011 privacy settlement. It might be as high as $5 billion. Facebook faces other investigations on multiple continents as governments seek to rein in the social media site.

As Mr. Reback pointed out, it does not always take a trial to improve behavior. After two professors explained in a paper how Amazon was restricting its third-party sellers from selling their goods more cheaply on other platforms, an anti-competitive move, Mr. Blumenthal picked up on the issue. He wrote a four-page letter to the F.T.C. and the Justice Department saying he was “deeply concerned,” and Amazon quietly dropped the practice.

Mr. Reback said the Justice Department’s move was significant. “They wouldn’t open something unless they at least thought there was smoke,” he said.

That view was challenged by Barry Lynn, director of the Open Markets Institute, a Washington think tank that has played a leading role in raising antitrust concerns.

“Until we see what they intend to do, none of this means anything,” Mr. Lynn said. “Maybe they are simply blowing smoke so the president gets happy for a moment so they can go back to doing nothing.”

The F.T.C.’s highest-profile technology antitrust case in the past decade involved Google. In 2011, the commission opened an investigation into whether the company ranked the search results of competing shopping, travel and reviews sites unfairly low. It closed the investigation in 2013 in a unanimous vote of the five-member commission that left Google largely unscathed outside of some minor voluntary commitments.

In 2015, The Wall Street Journal obtained the original F.T.C. staff report, which was much more critical than what was publicly revealed at the time. Google’s “conduct has resulted — and will result — in real harm to consumers and to innovation in the online search and advertising markets,” the report concluded.

Consumer groups have chastised the F.T.C. decision as a failure of American antitrust enforcement that set the pace for tech giants to grow into monopolies. Google, Facebook and Amazon control the online advertising market, and Google has grown from $38 billion in revenue in 2011 to $136 billion last year.

Since the F.T.C. investigation closed, the complaints against Google have expanded. Competitors that have complained to American regulators include Yelp, the consumer review site, and travel sites like TripAdvisor.

European regulators have accused Google of abusing its dominance in the smartphone industry with its Android operating system, which is used in 80 percent of the world’s smartphones. In July, European regulators fined Google $5.1 billion for automatically installing its search engine and other apps on Android phones.

Sundar Pichai, the company’s chief executive, has rebutted allegations of antitrust violations, as well as the accusations of biased results. After the European decision, he said on Twitter that “rapid innovation, wide choice, and falling prices are classic hallmarks of robust competition.”

“Android has enabled this and created more choice for everyone, not less,” he added.

The reference to “falling prices” points to a hurdle for any investigation. John Sherman, the Ohio senator for whom the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 is named, was able to decry monopolistic overcharges as “extortion which makes the people poor.” Modern antitrust theory revolves around the notion that unless there is direct harm to consumers, there is no case. And Google’s services are free to consumers.

The queasiness over the big tech companies is more spiritual than financial. Polls show a growing anxiety about the influence of technology on American lives, and the issue has emerged as a litmus test for the 2020 Democratic presidential field.

Ms. Warren said Saturday that she had been “talking for years about how Google is locking out competition.” A billboard her campaign erected last month near a train stop in San Francisco was designed to appeal to Silicon Valley commuters, particularly those who have been squeezed to distant housing by the area’s tech-fueled property boom.

It asks passers-by to “join our fight” to “Break Up Big Tech” by sending a text message.

On Saturday, a spokesman for Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, another leading contender, said the senator “has been trying to sound the alarm for years that the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few threatens our democracy and leads to rigged political and economic systems.”

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/02/business/google-antitrust-investigation.html

2019-06-02 14:09:03Z
CAIiEH4DppTi1o89KYSUkrZPNjUqFwgEKg8IACoHCAowjuuKAzCWrzww9oAY

Google Is at the Center of a Storm Brewing Over Big Tech - The New York Times

SAN FRANCISCO — Google, one of the most successful companies in history, has generally gotten its way with American regulators. That may be changing.

Politicians on the right and left are decrying the tech company’s enormous power. President Trump and other Republicans have focused on whether the company’s online search results are biased. Democrats have focused on whether the company stifles competition. And now, the Justice Department is exploring an investigation of the advertising and search firm, according to several people with knowledge of the discussions.

It is a small and preliminary step, and it could easily come to nothing. But if the agency pursues a case, it will almost certainly inspire reams of bad publicity, promote consumer distrust, sink employee morale and remind everyone that Google, with its early motto of “Don’t be evil,” held itself to standards it sometimes could not match.

A prospect that should really worry Google is a replay of the government’s case against Microsoft in the 1990s. Microsoft did not have to break itself into two, which was the government’s goal. But the company was distracted for at least a decade, which allowed space for start-ups like Google. Microsoft’s reputation took a dive.

“The damage to the monopolist’s position comes from the public airing of the facts,” said Gary Reback, a Silicon Valley lawyer who was instrumental in the case against Microsoft and has worked with companies that argue they have suffered unfair competition from Google.

Even without a formal government investigation, Google’s reputation started to fray over the weekend as politicians jumped on the news.

“It’s time to fight back,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president. Senators Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, and Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, each said the scrutiny was overdue.

The White House did not respond to questions about whether the president would support an investigation by the Justice Department. But according to two people familiar with his thinking, Mr. Trump would probably welcome any action.

Mr. Trump, like many other Republicans, has repeatedly complained publicly that Google suppresses positive news about conservatives in search results. He has also criticized big tech companies like Amazon, Facebook and Twitter.

Google, whose parent company is Alphabet, declined to comment, as did representatives for the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission.

Like Amazon, Apple and Facebook, Google is awash in cash, data and ambition, and increasingly controversial. The F.T.C. announced in February an antitrust task force to look at the technology field. But in an unusual move, the commission has now agreed to give oversight of Google to the Justice Department. That puts pressure on the department’s head of antitrust, Makan Delrahim, to follow through with a robust investigation.

In the past, Mr. Delrahim has said that “credible evidence” would need to exist before antitrust officials would step in. Inside the White House, broader discussions about regulating Google have not taken place, one of the people close to Mr. Trump said Saturday. But that person said that Mr. Delrahim had built up “a lot of authority” in the Trump administration, and that there would be comfort with what the agency recommends.

In exchange for the Justice Department’s claim over the antitrust issues related to Google, the F.T.C. took over antitrust oversight of Amazon, according to two people familiar with the decision.

The online retailing giant has been criticized for using its massive online sales site to edge out competitors and harm third-party sellers that use the platform to sell goods. Amazon has argued it was not a monopoly in retail and that Walmart and other companies made up a big chunk of the retail market.

The decision to divide antitrust oversight of the two tech giants was part of negotiations a few weeks ago between the agencies’ antitrust divisions. To avoid overlap, the agencies routinely negotiate to determine which one will take on merger reviews and antitrust cases.

It is unclear what the F.T.C. will explore in its scrutiny of Amazon and it does not appear that the agency has started a formal investigation into the company, the two people said.

The two people familiar with the decision warn that the decision to divide responsibilities over the two companies is a nascent step toward antitrust scrutiny of Google and Amazon.

The debate between the agencies suggests that “whoever wins will open a significant investigation,” said Michael Kades, the director for competition issues at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth and a former F.T.C. official.

“An investigation of Google is significant for Google and other major players in the tech space,” Mr. Kades said.

The F.T.C. is near the end of negotiations with Facebook about the size of a fine for violating a 2011 privacy settlement. It might be as high as $5 billion. Facebook faces other investigations on multiple continents as governments seek to rein in the social media site.

As Mr. Reback pointed out, it does not always take a trial to improve behavior. After two professors explained in a paper how Amazon was restricting its third-party sellers from selling their goods more cheaply on other platforms, an anti-competitive move, Mr. Blumenthal picked up on the issue. He wrote a four-page letter to the F.T.C. and the Justice Department saying he was “deeply concerned,” and Amazon quietly dropped the practice.

Mr. Reback said the Justice Department’s move was significant. “They wouldn’t open something unless they at least thought there was smoke,” he said.

That view was challenged by Barry Lynn, director of the Open Markets Institute, a Washington think tank that has played a leading role in raising antitrust concerns.

“Until we see what they intend to do, none of this means anything,” Mr. Lynn said. “Maybe they are simply blowing smoke so the president gets happy for a moment so they can go back to doing nothing.”

The F.T.C.’s highest-profile technology antitrust case in the past decade involved Google. In 2011, the commission opened an investigation into whether the company ranked the search results of competing shopping, travel and reviews sites unfairly low. It closed the investigation in 2013 in a unanimous vote of the five-member commission that left Google largely unscathed outside of some minor voluntary commitments.

In 2015, The Wall Street Journal obtained the original F.T.C. staff report, which was much more critical than what was publicly revealed at the time. Google’s “conduct has resulted — and will result — in real harm to consumers and to innovation in the online search and advertising markets,” the report concluded.

Consumer groups have chastised the F.T.C. decision as a failure of American antitrust enforcement that set the pace for tech giants to grow into monopolies. Google, Facebook and Amazon control the online advertising market, and Google has grown from $38 billion in revenue in 2011 to $136 billion last year.

Since the F.T.C. investigation closed, the complaints against Google have expanded. Competitors that have complained to American regulators include Yelp, the consumer review site, and travel sites like TripAdvisor.

European regulators have accused Google of abusing its dominance in the smartphone industry with its Android operating system, which is used in 80 percent of the world’s smartphones. In July, European regulators fined Google $5.1 billion for automatically installing its search engine and other apps on Android phones.

Sundar Pichai, the company’s chief executive, has rebutted allegations of antitrust violations, as well as the accusations of biased results. After the European decision, he said on Twitter that “rapid innovation, wide choice, and falling prices are classic hallmarks of robust competition.”

“Android has enabled this and created more choice for everyone, not less,” he added.

The reference to “falling prices” points to a hurdle for any investigation. John Sherman, the Ohio senator for whom the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 is named, was able to decry monopolistic overcharges as “extortion which makes the people poor.” Modern antitrust theory revolves around the notion that unless there is direct harm to consumers, there is no case. And Google’s services are free to consumers.

The queasiness over the big tech companies is more spiritual than financial. Polls show a growing anxiety about the influence of technology on American lives, and the issue has emerged as a litmus test for the 2020 Democratic presidential field.

Ms. Warren said Saturday that she had been “talking for years about how Google is locking out competition.” A billboard her campaign erected last month near a train stop in San Francisco was designed to appeal to Silicon Valley commuters, particularly those who have been squeezed to distant housing by the area’s tech-fueled property boom.

It asks passers-by to “join our fight” to “Break Up Big Tech” by sending a text message.

On Saturday, a spokesman for Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, another leading contender, said the senator “has been trying to sound the alarm for years that the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few threatens our democracy and leads to rigged political and economic systems.”

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/02/business/google-antitrust-investigation.html

2019-06-02 09:01:58Z
52780307146464

DOJ edges toward Google antitrust probe - CNN

Negotiations between DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission in recent weeks have resulted in the Justice Department gaining control over a possible investigation of the tech giant, the people said on Saturday.

The decision reflects the first steps in what could become a wide-ranging probe into the company's business practices. While the scope of DOJ's interest is unclear, agency regulators led by antitrust chief Makan Delrahim may focus their attention on Google's search business, according to two of the people familiar with the possible probe. Google's advertising practices could also come under scrutiny, said one of the people.

A looming DOJ investigation poses the newest and most serious challenge yet to the tech industry from Washington, where political leaders have accused Silicon Valley titans of strangling competition and in some cases have demanded the companies be broken up. Those calls have been spurred on by an endless string of privacy mishaps, misinformation scandals and the proliferation of graphic and hateful content on the tech platforms.

Google (GOOG), which has said healthy and thriving markets are in everyone's interest, declined to comment on the potential probe. The Justice Department and FTC also declined comment.

A fresh investigation of Google by US regulators could reopen old wounds. The company was last under investigation by the FTC as recently as 2013, but emerged relatively unscathed after the firm pledged to change certain aspects of its business, such as how it handles content from third-party travel or shopping sites. The FTC then closed the investigation.

The Justice Department's recent talks with the FTC — a process known as "clearance" — suggest the likelihood of a new probe is high, some analysts say.

"If there were a clearance fight over a Google investigation — this is such a big matter that whoever won the clearance fight would almost certainly be opening an investigation," said Michael Kades, a former FTC antitrust attorney.

Still, just because DOJ is taking on responsibility for Google's oversight does not mean an investigation has been opened or that the agency is imminently poised to act against Google, said Gene Kimmelman, a former Justice Department antitrust official.

"This is a warning sign for Google," he said. "It's quite clear the Department of Justice will be at least scrutinizing their behavior very carefully."

Regulators' renewed scrutiny of Google is reminiscent of the critical reception the search giant has faced in Europe in recent years. EU officials have slapped Google with billions of dollars in fines for allegedly anticompetitive practices. Those practices ranged from Google's advertising rules for websites to its bundling of proprietary apps on Android smartphones.

Maureen Ohlhausen, a former acting chairman of the FTC, said the tech industry's fall from political grace has raised expectations for the nation's top competition enforcers — and for Delrahim to "[stake] out new territory for DOJ."

"With the continuing techlash from the right and the left, both antitrust agencies are under pressure to escalate their actions," she said.

One complicating factor for US regulators may be President Donald Trump, who has mused in public about "looking at" companies such as Amazon (AMZN), Facebook (FB)and Google from an antitrust lens. Trump has repeatedly shown an interest in regulating tech platforms. But his remarks have proven controversial because antitrust investigations are supposed to take place free from White House influence.

Similar concerns surrounded the Justice Department's 2017 antitrust lawsuit against AT&T — now the parent company of WarnerMedia, which owns CNN — as the telecom giant sought to acquire Time Warner. In federal court, AT&T sought White House communications logs that could have shed light on the matter, but a judge restricted the case to economic analysis.

"The companies ought to be careful about how they behave at this moment," Kimmelman added. "But I also think there will be enormous scrutiny of what the enforcement officials do, and why they do it."

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/01/tech/google-doj-antitrust-probe/index.html

2019-06-01 21:03:34Z
CAIiEB7wQK3z9KuuSeM5IoXcaEIqGQgEKhAIACoHCAowocv1CjCSptoCMPrTpgU