Click G For Media Monopoly

• Google decides the advertising rates for different publications by its own metrics.

• The company, a mass aggregator, does not pay publishers directly for content created.

• Google, without a 바카라�permanent ­establishment바카라� in India, is still ­battling tax authorities.

• Publishers have complained about the Chrome ad-filter, which will block advertisements it deems intrusive from February.

• Concerns over search manipulation have led to the European Union cracking down on the web giant.

***

바카라�Currently, the predominant business model for ­commercial search engines is advertising. The goals of the advertising business model do not always ­correspond to providing quality search to users.바카라�

Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page wrote those words바카라�evergreen and prescient바카라�20 years ago and 12,383 km away. People today could find it a tad ironic that the words were not merely courier-delivered by the two, but actually authored by them­바카라�the quote is from their Stanford paper, The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine, which dates back to the same year that the search engine came into being. So, do truths change? Maybe.

Why they called it 바카라�Google바카라� and not the now-odd-sounding 바카라�BackRub바카라� was because 바카라�googol, or 10^100, 바카라�fits well with our goal of building very large-scale search engines.바카라� Google became the gateway drug to the larger fix that was the internet, or even what Maggi was to noodles, but it was primarily a search engine. Not anymore.

If the World Wide Web is indeed a gossamer mesh spun by many over time, Google is now the largest spider, the one that has the gardeners worried. It watches over everything, and decides which pieces of data flow where. Almost every other form of normal online activity seems to happen through it, as if it were the ether itself. Or a looming omnipresence/omniscience. But, in a way, it too is being watched now. Or rather, searched바카라�its giant, mutating form is eliciting more than a little interest for the way it dominates and controls the landscape, without itself being subject to any reciprocal commitment. Since no one can escape its all-pervasive nat­ure, others are beginning to resent the way it itself eludes an externally set responsibility while exerting huge power.

In one way, it바카라�s the old world trying to catch up with the new. Look at taxation. It바카라�s a shadow that hounds most of the digital economy globally바카라�it바카라�s following Google around too. As perhaps it should. Consider this: Google바카라�s India revenue was Rs 7,208.9 crore in 2017, up from Rs 5,904 crore the previous year, and it pays minuscule taxes on that. Then there바카라�s the matter of anti-trust legislation it has got entangled into of late바카라�the way Microsoft did in the 1990s. As an operating system, that was as inescapable; Google eludes your veto by being an omnibus that surrounds you from within and without.

It바카라�s been an amazing outward expansion along all axes that brought it here. The once-pristine search engine with that iconic uncluttered white screen first became everyone바카라�s ­default e-mail service, then a browser, a library of every book that was ever written, an archive of every website you바카라�ve been to, every photo you바카라�ve clicked, then your phone바카라�s OS, your GPS-enabled map, your YouTube, your newspaper boy who will deliver your news, then make a ­permanent mental noting of what you read바카라�. In short, you바카라�ve been well and truly Googled.

But what바카라�s intriguing is how the modalities of news have changed with Google. And, concomitantly, the rules of advertising. According to market research company Statista, 94 per cent of India바카라�s desktop search traffic goes to Google. And Google바카라�s Android OS (with its in-built Google Chrome browser) runs nearly 80 per cent of India바카라�s mobiles. So it바카라�s not just about Google News as a curation platform. It바카라�s through Google search that every headline, each piece of news, every offering of media houses, swims into people바카라�s consciousness.

Google for 바카라�Narendra Modi바카라�, and the top three links that pop up are news items. A couple of years ago, the first result would probably have been the Wikipedia link. Google has been ringing in the changes, subtly. These vast powers of dissemination also mean more than the clichéd ­lion바카라�s share of the digital advertising pie바카라�in fact, it decides how to slice and distribute the pie. Once you are taken to that piece of news, what ads pop up on the media site are governed by Google바카라�s alg­orithms. More vexing for media firms, even the rates for those ads are decided by Google바카라�s own analytics. So, from 바카라�creatives바카라� that litter digital neon boards to 바카라�content바카라�, Google has it all covered. Is it fair then to think of it, along with Facebook, as the 바카라�new Big Media바카라�?

Most experts think so, but in degrees. 바카라�I would regard them as media companies, but I would not think of them as credible news organisations,바카라� says Durga Raghunath, CEO-digital at The Indian Express. Despite being only media-tech firms that 바카라�get information and services to users바카라�, she sees them as the 바카라�new big media바카라� for two reasons: 바카라�Firstly, the amount of money advertisers are spending on them to get to an audience and, secondly, the different ways we use them in terms of social networks, maps, e-mail and videos.바카라�

Look at Google바카라�s Rs 7,208.9 crore on a comparative scale. BCCL, the conglomerate that owns the Times Group, ­bel­ieved to be India바카라�s largest media group, with a vast array of content ­creators in its kitty, posted a consolidated revenue of Rs 9,976 crore for FY 2016, for all its subsidiaries, according to a report in TheHoot.org. The Old Lady of Boribunder has been around for 180 years; and Google, still a teenager, is abreast of India바카라�s third largest media house, Zee, which brought in close to Rs 6,434 crore in 2017. HT Media and the ABP Group were at Rs 2,681 crore (FY 2017) and Rs 1,326 crore (FY 2016), respectively, while The Economic Times ­reported that Star India Pvt Ltd posted revenues worth Rs 10,800 crore in FY 2016.

But Google hasn바카라�t zoomed to near the top of the news market by playing the same old game. Traditional media applies an editorial mind: it creates ent­ertainment, gathers news, ­selects, edits, curates, does due diligence, and adopts a stance towards the reality it reports on. It also spends on news ­gathering, not to mention printing, production and distri­bution. Google, on the other hand, pulls out links and tells the user what the most popular story is, seemingly value-­neutral on all other counts.

Experts reckon that if the media is where people discover content, then Google and Facebook are media by that definition. In 2017, the Reuters Digital News Report said over half the readers across the world came across a story not due to an editor, but courtesy an algorithm. 바카라�Google is a giant aggregator, working with advanced technology beyond the reach of most media companies,바카라� says Sebabrata Banerjee, a blogger who works with a leading newspaper. And Shamnad Basheer, founder of SpicyIP and managing trustee at IDIA (Increasing Diversity by Increasing Access to Legal Education), says: 바카라�They are big media, frighteningly so바카라�big media that has largely escaped regulation.바카라�

Sevanti Ninan, editor of TheHoot.org, a media watchdog (which has been funded by Google as Outlook reported in 2013), off­ers a more nuanced view. 바카라�Google helps content find users int­erested in it,바카라� and that바카라�s a 바카라�huge blessing for niche media바카라�, she feels. 바카라�It drives traffic, is a disseminator, and that makes it neither publisher nor platform. YouTube is a platform, and inc­reasingly a really important one, which allows you to start a channel on it, making it a publisher of video content.바카라�

Fish or fowl? Hardly matters. Categories blur, even as you define them. YouTube, for instance, plans to launch its own programming with subscription platforms, like Netflix and Amazon Prime. What matters is that a list of 2017바카라�s top 30 global media brands by Zenith placed Alphabet Inc, which became Google바카라�s parent company in 2016, on top. Facebook came in second. Together, the report said, Google and Facebook accounted for 64 per cent of the growth in global advertising between 2012 and 2016바카라�and that바카라�s where the shoe is beginning to pinch.

Since aggregators are parasitic on everyone else, publishers, the actual content creators, were relying on pieces of this pie being passed around. But trickledown can be an illusory thing바카라�in India as much as in the West. The Washington Post reported late last year that Buzzfeed and Vice were going to miss their 2017 revenue projections. In a recent article detailing their financials for the past five years, Buzzfeed founder Jonah Peretti admitted they couldn바카라�t rely on the aggregators for revenue: 바카라�Google and Facebook are taking the vast maj­ority of ad revenue, and paying content creators far too little for the value they deliver to users.바카라�

Tempers are frayed, and the next showdown is coming soon. In February, Chrome will start blocking advertisements it deems 바카라�intrusive바카라� on web pages. Since Chrome was estimated to have cornered nearly 42 per cent share of browser use in India by December 2017 (StatCounter data), its self-arrogated power to block ads on media pages acc­essed through Google (and hence regulated by Google Ads) has not left publishers overjoyed. In an article in The Times of India, Gautam Sinha, CEO of Times Internet Limited, was quoted saying: 바카라�Google is effectively regulating the ent­ire digital ad industry, including its competitors바카라�a role no company should have the authority to do.바카라�

In an e-mail response to Outlook, Anant Goenka, executive director of The Indian Express, says premium publishers stopped using intrusive ad formats long ago, but since most smartphones come 바카라�pre-installed with Chrome, Google must be less dictatorial in its decision-making바카라�. He says that after publishing firm Axel Springer and many European news ­organisations complained, EU regulators were 바카라�quick to rap Google바카라�s knuckles for precisely such beh­aviour. I would hate to see Google바카라�s relationship with Indian publishers go down a similar path it has in Europe.바카라�

Experts too feel Google may have overstepped, especially since, as Raghunath points out, Google will have an 바카라�even larger share of the ad pie바카라� given Chrome바카라�s marketshare. And besides being 바카라�regulated on the media side바카라�, says Basheer, 바카라�Google and other big media must be continuously monitored by the Competition Commission for anti-competitive effects바카라�they바카라�ve become too big.바카라� Being dominant is fine, but they shouldn바카라�t be permitted to 바카라�abuse this dominance바카라�, he adds. Raghunath concedes that a better user experience is 바카라�something we all want바카라�, but says Google deciding on your ads won바카라�t be 바카라�an easy pill to swallow바카라�for publishers who have ­annual commitments from different kinds of advertisers바카라�.

"India needs its own search engine,바카라� dec­lares S. Gurumurthy, co-convenor of the Swadeshi Jagaran Manch, the RSS바카라�s economic wing. A 바카라�dictatorial바카라� China used 바카라�censorship to contain Google. We have to use anti-competition law like the EU,바카라� he says, pointing out that Google 바카라�frames itself as just another technical company, which helps it sidestep scrutiny바카라�.

Besides the immense power that all­ows it such control, there바카라�s raw money at stake. Alphabet Inc may have diverse revenue streams like the PlayStore, Apps, its cloud platform and Google Fiber (its optical fibre broadband service). However, for years, the bulk of its revenue has come courtesy its proprietory advertising service, AdWords. In 2016, it totted up some 88.7 per cent of $89.5 billion. And Q3 in 2017 saw it at 87.6 per cent바카라�$24 billion out of $27.5 billion바카라�so it바카라�s a stable ratio.

With AdWords, we enter deep, eerie waters. It바카라�s Google바카라�s digital ad service that allows ads to be strategically chosen for you, based on cookies generated from your browser and on keywords ­determined by the advertisers, and then place them on web pages you visit. Google has got you covered wall to wall바카라�via mail, location history, web act­ivity, what not바카라�so it pretty much knows what you바카라�re a sucker for. This ­enriched, ­micro-detailed customer profile is an ­illicit goldmine for advertisers. Google gets paid when there바카라�s 바카라�action바카라� (clicks) on these ads.

Revenue from this source has been falling by minuscule amounts since 2008, but Google still takes home a mammoth 32.8 per cent of a global digital ad ­industry worth around $200 billion. How does India stack up? The market size was brushing Rs 10,000 crore by December 2017, a joint survey by ASSOCHAM and KPMG found. And the stakes are growing fast.

So, how much do Indian brands have to spend via Google to be seen? Outlook accessed plans charted out for a well-known clothing brand and the Indian arm of a global infotainment channel. Over four weeks, the former intends to spend over Rs 7.5 lakh targeting keywords in Google searches to show image advertisements. Another Rs 2.5 lakh is set aside for Google Display Network. YouTube is a prime target, where it may choose to spend Rs 20 lakh alone on InStream and InDisplay ads for the first week and Rs 10 lakh on InStream ads over the month. (InStream are the six-seconds-before-you-skip ads, which run before a video plays, while InDisplay displays content on YouTube and GDN.) The channel, on the other hand, has a four-phase plan worth Rs 20 lakh, aiming to reach out to over four crore people over 10 weeks: Rs 12 lakh for YouTube, Rs 2.5 lakh for GDN, just over Rs 3 lakh for Facebook and a measly Rs 50,000 for Twitter.

Such spending plans are framed by digital marketers hired by brands, and these worthies are currently making a beeline for YouTube, in effect Google, to home in on the right eyeballs with the magic of algorithms, targeted keywords and search strings. All this, of course, without speaking of the primary banner ad on YouTube, which movers from within the digital marketing industry say goes for anything between Rs 10-20 lakh for a day, and is sold out within days for the entire year. An ad banner on Marine Drive, by comparison, would cost Rs 3-4 crore a month to rent, says an adman: 바카라�This is digital real estate; it goes for the same amount in probably 10 days, but reaches out to so many more people.바카라�

No wonder its charm is growing. 바카라�YouTube is the third largest channel based on adspend now, after Star Plus and Zee,바카라� says a digital marketing expert, who reckons it tots up some Rs 700-1,000 crore in a year. It바카라�s ruthlessly performance-linked. The likes of Star and Zee have a 바카라�streamlined structure with content creators getting their due바카라�, while YouTube has a 바카라�very unstructured way to pay out content creators. You only get money when you go viral.바카라�

Another insider bemoans the competition in the sector that has led to advertisers having to bid higher for the same keywords. 바카라�Google enjoys a monopoly, hence it has increased the cost of keywords. When I started out, a click used to cost me Rs 17-18. Now, it바카라�s Rs 100 for the same keyword. That바카라�s over five times in four years because the competition in that segment, on that keyword, has ramped up that much. Advertisers are affected because the margin goes for a toss.바카라�

The monopoly helps Google in other ways, especially when it decides to become a player in a segment, because it바카라�s placed in a singularly advantageous place to skewer the competition! In June 2017, after a seven-year probe, Google was handed a penalty of $2.8 billion by the EU for a breach of anti-trust rules that related to search results for shopping comparisons. Why? Because Google had 바카라�systematically given prominent placement to its own comparison shopping service바카라�. The EU noted that its 바카라�rival comparison shopping services are subject to Google바카라�s generic search ­algorithms, including demotion바카라� and, as a result, 바카라�consumers very rarely see rival comparison shopping services in Google바카라�s search results바카라�.

The case began after the founders of Foundem, a price comparison website from Bracknell parish in the UK, accused Google of favouring its own links in searches. In 2006, Shivaun and Adam Raff found that their vertical search ­engine, Foundem, was wiped off Google. After repeated ­requests, Foundem, which won The Gadget Show바카라�s award for best price comparison website in 2008, was restored in 2009바카라�only to be barely discoverable on Google (as opposed to searches on Yahoo and Bing).

바카라�In October 2009, we defined search neutrality as the principle that search engine results should be driven by the pursuit of relevance and not skewed for commercial gain,바카라� Shivaun told Outlook over e-mail. Two different search algorithms are not expected to produce similar results, 바카라�nor should they바카라�, says Shivaun, but Google바카라�s 바카라�universal search mechanism, which systematically promotes Google바카라�s own services, and its increasingly heavy-handed penalty algorithms, which systematically demote or exclude Google바카라�s rivals, are both clear ­examples of financially motivated discrimination바카라�.

The nearly decade-long tussle wasn바카라�t easy. 바카라�In the end, getting to this point required numerous formal submissions, White papers, panel discussions, op-eds, open letters, as well as countless meetings with regulators, politicians, and journalists across four continents,바카라� says Shivaun. On why she thinks this was a 바카라�landmark verdict바카라�, she says, 바카라�It is no stretch to say the outcome of this case could safeguard the future of competition, innovation and consumer choice on the Internet.바카라�

In August 2015, IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad told the Lok Sabha in a written reply that the Competition Comm­ission had directed an investigation into four separate cases involving alleged abuse of market dominance by Google. The first, filed in 2012, involved M/s Consim Info (which owns Bharat Matrimony) and consumer group CUTS. Accusations similar to the Foundem case were levelled, with the parties alleging that 바카라�Google runs its core business of online search and search advertising in a discriminatory manner, causing harm to advertisers and indirectly to consumers바카라�. Google was 바카라�creating an uneven playing field by favouring its own services and of its vertical partners by manipulating the search algorithms,바카라� the complaint said.

Pradeep Mehta, secretary general of CUTS, who admires Google for the 바카라�fantastic바카라� services it provides, says the investigation took time and Google delayed matters too바카라�in March 2014, the Competition Commission penalised it to the tune of Rs 1 crore for not cooperating in the investigations. Sources say a Competition Commission order is now expected in weeks and it may have repercussions for Google. It would be the classic instance of an older legal framework evolving to catch up with the ways of a fast-mutating digital world.

Taxation is another area many countries are breaking their heads over. On October 25, 2017, the Bangalore bench of the I-T appellate tribunal asked Google to pay taxes on Rs 1,457 crore remitted to Google Ireland between 2007-08 and 2012-13, citing what seemed to be a 바카라�clear design to skip the liability by both the assessee as well as GIL (Google Ireland) by having mutual understanding바카라�. The latter appealed to the Karnataka High Court, which asked the tribunal to dispose of the appeal in 바카라�an expeditious manner바카라�, on or before this January 31. The tax amounts to a mere Rs 129 crore (of which Google has dep­osited Rs 70 crore, and has been asked by the court to keep ano­ther 20 per cent aside in a Bangalore bank account), but it would set a precedent that can be safely called momentous.

The question relates to the definition of what바카라�s known in business as a 바카라�permanent establishment바카라�바카라�loosely, 바카라�a fixed place of business in a particular jurisdiction that gives rise to income or value-added tax liability바카라�. Can a digital entity like Google, which by definition transcends physical spaces, be ­circumscribed by laws that related to the good old days of brick and mortar? Conversely, can it be allowed to cream a real physical territory off a few neat thousand crores, manipulating the very space where local (taxable) entities operate, without itself being tax-liable?

Akhilesh Ranjan, principal commissioner of international tax, feels there should be liability, for good reasons. 바카라�They are able to render services without a physical presence; Google Ireland need not have an office in India. The issue is how do we tax Google. In all such cases, there is value addition based on market demand and customer base. Google has your data, user data, which has value. Since there is value addition, there should be a tax,바카라� he tells Outlook. In July 2017, Google had a close shave in France with paying $1.3 billion worth of taxes. The core issues were set out in 2013 in the 바카라�White Paper on digital economy taxation바카라� by Pierre Collin and Nicolas Colin, then senior officials with the French government. In this ­ongoing attrition, the law is the Biblical shadow, trying to keep up with the pace of the digital revolution.

In India, one big bone of contention pertained to AdWords, the major source of Google바카라�s profits. In its order, the Bangalore bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) said, 바카라�We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the reasoning for treating the payment made by the advertisers (to Google) as a business profit and not as a royalty.바카라� Why would 바카라�business profit바카라� sound more harmless for Google than 바카라�royalty바카라�? One, because India바카라�s double taxation treaty with Ireland protects anything Google Ireland may show on its books, even if it is passed on by Google India. Royalty, on the other hand, carries a more loaded meaning. It rests on the assumption that Google India is using a patented technology and intellectual property (AdWord) technically owned by Google Ireland and hence any profit Google India makes using that technology and remits to Google Ireland is seen by Indian authorities as royalty바카라�and hence taxable. Google prefers to see it as 바카라�distribution fee바카라�, whereas Indian tax authorities see it fit to be taxed under 바카라�section 9(1)(vi) of the I-T Act read with the Indo-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement바카라�.

Experts are divided. Ranjan backs the ITAT order, saying Adwords allows for the customisation of ads based on data taken from Indian users. He too contends that intellectual property is being transferred, 바카라�which Google Ireland all­ows바카라�. Prabhu Govindan, managing partner at KPSN Cons­ulting LLP, too says the tribunal 바카라�has provided enough facts and legal precedence to back its judgement. By applying the principle of substance over form,바카라� he feels Google바카라�s distribution fee should be seen as royalty.

Girish Vanvari, partner and head of tax at KPMG India, which has ties with Google, disagrees, saying the 바카라�appellate order has read beyond the agreement바카라� (service agreement ­between Google India and Google Ireland). He says the bench is 바카라�assuming, concluding contracts바카라�.

Many concur with the idea that the likes of Google are different from other MNCs that have set up shop in India. Basheer says the closer analogy is not a McDonalds franchisee, which would have made the case for royalties and consequent taxation a stronger one. 바카라�It바카라�s better to think of Google as a real-­estate developer who uses third party agents to attract more people,바카라� he says. 바카라�Google AdWords is more like digital real est­ate. It is digital real estate. Google India is using Google바카라�s trademark (brand name) and other intellectual property only incidentally. Their main purpose is to actively go out and solicit customers who can buy the keyword space.바카라�

India is not the only place getting vexed by this complicated interplay bet­ween physical and virtual economic activity. In 2015, the OECD came up with an action plan against 바카라�Base Erosion and Profit Shifting바카라� (BEPS), tit­led 바카라�Addressing tax challenges in digital economy바카라�. The G20바카라�s concern was that MNCs were placing profits in low-tax jurisdictions (like Ireland). One of the measures suggested was an 바카라�equalisation levy바카라� and taxation on the basis of a significant digital presence. This is critically relevant going forward because India too faces the same predicament as France and a host of other countries: Google does not have a 바카라�permanent establishment바카라� here despite having offices in Gurgaon, Mumbai, Hyderabad and Bangalore, with 바카라�thousands of employees in the country, representing the various aspects of the Google business from engineering to operations바카라�, says a Google spokesperson.

Sure enough, the Finance Bill of 2016, passed in 2017, imp­osed an equalisation levy (EL) of 6 per cent on the digital ad space. To avoid the double taxation imbroglio, I-T provisions were amended so that the levy was independent of corporate tax legislation. Ranjan feels EL could be looked at바카라�but only as an 바카라�interim measure바카라�. Why interim? Because, ultimately, in this era taxation can바카라�t be based only on a 바카라�physical basis바카라�, but by quantifying a 바카라�significant digital presence바카라�, he says. It바카라�s a fundamental shift he calls for. 바카라�We would like to see a change in 바카라�permanent establishment바카라� in tax treaties.바카라�

Others have variations on this. Vanvari reckons EL 바카라�is not going to go away바카라�only expand its scope바카라�. Govindan feels the I-T department could 바카라�consider a lesser tax rate for the business income of foreign companies with no physical presence바카라�. But for now, 바카라�something like EL바카라� is a viable beginning, says Ranjan. The demand for it is growing in EU countries like Italy and France. The UK recently brought the Diverted Profit Tax of 25 per cent while Argentina taxes foreign tech companies deriving profits from its territory to the tune of 3 per cent. 바카라�Con­ceptually, many countries are coming around,바카라� says Ranjan.

But how do you actually gauge 바카라�significant digital presence바카라� (SDP)? How to map a non-material phenomenon onto a physical territory? Definitions have to be sharpened, made precise. Should it be subscribers, or the volume of user data generated from the country in question? Vanvari reckons getting a precise fix on SDP will be crucial for other reasons too바카라�given the parallel, and even more rapid, rise of technology like crypto-currency. That바카라�s why he feels EL바카라�a sort of bridge between the old and new바카라�won바카라�t go away. 바카라�The digital presence will always be in jurisdictions outside India. What you can control is payment to this source,바카라� he says.

But the conceptual shift can no longer be evaded. 바카라�The not­ion that somebody must be taxed based on some sort of (physical) presence needs a serious relook바카라�people in the digital space are constantly busting borders,바카라� says Basheer. Terr­itoriality won바카라�t work in a landscape where people don바카라�t do business according to 바카라�the rigours of rigid borders바카라�, he says. 바카라�You are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. The law is the round hole, and Google et al in the digital space the square pegs. You have to change the shape of the round hole to acc­ommodate the peg...make it more malleable, so to speak.바카라�

The retuning won바카라�t be simple. Govindan cautions that a system based on SDP would be 바카라�very subjective and complex to administer바카라�, increasing compliance costs for business. 바카라�Also, tax departments of all the countries should be willing to integrate into a common I-T infrastructure,바카라� he elaborates.

Perhaps some things don바카라�t change, and even Google can바카라�t permanently avoid taxes. Tax and competition authorities are on its tail, and a 바카라�framework바카라� is in the works. Last August, the government set up the Srikrishna Committee to look at the possibility of a data protection law. In the 240-plus-page White paper that it calls 바카라�necessarily lengthy바카라�, the committee may just have homed in on a 바카라�game-changer바카라�, according to T. Prashant Reddy, author and assistant professor at NALSAR, Hyderabad.

The ninth chapter of the paper (which was open for public consultation until the final day of 2017) introduces the topic of 바카라�Data Localisation바카라�바카라�think of it as a new kind of pre-nuptial contract between digital and physical, as the phrase implies. 바카라�Data localisation requires companies to store and process data on servers physically located within national borders,바카라� the paper says. 바카라�A nation has the prerogative to take measures to protect its interests and its sovereignty, but it must carefully evaluate the advantages and dangers of locally storing data before taking a firm decision on an issue (that) has the potential to cause a major ripple effect across a number of ind­ustries,바카라� it adds. That last bit obviously applies to the IT and telecom sectors, and the start-up ecosystem.

바카라�The likes of Google will need to set up data farms in India, and that will change the rules of the game,바카라� says Reddy, since the government does not really have 바카라�too much ­jurisdiction over Google Inc바카라� at present. After localisation, 바카라�for all practical purposes, they will need to operate on Indian soil with a physical presence. But does that give the government too much power over Facebook and Google?바카라� Reddy asks. Searching for an epoch-defining power ­struggle? Ask Google.

***

Google & The Indian Media

• Star India Rs 10,800cr
  Star India consolidated revenue for FY 2016
  (Source: The Economic Times)

• Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd Rs 9,976cr
  Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd, subsidiaries consolidated revenue for FY 2016
  (Source: The Hoot)

• Google Rs 7,208.99cr
  Google India revenue for FY 2017
  (Source: RoC)

• Zee Entertainment Rs 6,434.2cr
  Zee Entertainment Enterprises consolidated revenue for FY 2017
  (Source: Annual Report)

• Network 18 Media Rs 3471.1cr
  Network 18 Media and Investments net income from operations for FY 2017
  (Source: Annual Report)

• HT Media Rs 2,681.55cr
  HT Media consolidated revenue for FY 2017
  (Source: Annual Report)

• ABP Pvt Ltd 1,326cr
  ABP Pvt Ltd Consolidated revenue for FY 2016
  (Source: Annual Report)

***

Google바카라�s Response

Responses to Outlook바카라�s queries by a Google spokesperson

On the Chrome 바카라�ad-blocker바카라�: These aren바카라�t new rules for Chrome but rather one way in which Google is supporting an ­industry-wide standard adopted by publishers as part of Better Ads coalition.

Currently, this standard, the Better Ads Standard, applies to sites in North America (US and Canada) and Europe. Also, this is an ad-filter and not an ad-blocker.

On the CCI investigation into Bharat Matrimony and CUTS vs Google: We continue to cooperate with the investigation and remain convinced that our products are pro-competition, pro-user and in compliance with competition laws of India.

On the ITAT order: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), after a six-year-long battle with Google India, made a tax dem­and on Rs 1,457 crore바카라�by holding payments made by Google India to Google Ireland as its reseller of the advertising space as royalty. We filed an appeal and the high court issued a stay order.

We are encouraged by the high court바카라�s stay, pending further hearings, on the Bangalore Income Tax Appellate Tribunal바카라�s ruling, which we believe was a clear ­departure from previous judgments on the issue and not in line with India바카라�s double taxation avoidance agreements.

On the prospect of 바카라�data localisation바카라�: We continue to work with the Industry to put forward our views.