[IP] Google and 'neutrality' hypocrisy
Begin forwarded message:
From: mxu585 <mxu585@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: June 22, 2006 11:55:11 AM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Google and 'neutrality' hypocrisy
re: Basically, the proposal, intentionally I believe, draws an
analogy between the business models of Google and Yahoo! with the
proposed models from the service providers which would like to charge
for premium treatment (access, ranking in search, etc.). What's
particularly amusing about this is Google is now in a rather awkward
position... Arguing that service providers can not provide preferred
treatment while Google can. Very creative, and I would guess that the
idea was planted by a telco lobbyist.
It's not very creative really. Same irrelevant comparison was floated
by telco lobbyist McCormick during the House Judiciary hearings, and
was as resoundingly crushed as you will ever see during a
Congressional hearing. The market structure of the broadband access
market is so completely unrelated and dissimilar to the search engine
market (or even the broader internet applications market) that such a
comparison is comical.
A few fractional/fringe similarities does not remotely justify use of
broader comparisons to draw structural conclusions. The comparison is
a red herring from the start, so the conclusions drawn are
dysfunctional.
Google's basic search product is a) free and b) operates in a highly
competitive market (a dozen or so active competitors, and at least 2
dozen over the past 7 years), and c) has zero switching costs, and d)
even allows users simultaneous use of multiple competing search
products at any given instant. Broadband access "market" has none of
the above structural underpinnings.
That Google has the largest market share is irrelevant to the
argument because that market status was gained in a truly open
competitive market under the above conditions, selected by the market
in the face of multiple level-playing-field competitors separated by
zero switching costs.
Perhaps more importantly to the issue at hand, Google also does not
own/control the delivery platform so they cannot deploy overt/covert
traffic manipulation in the delivery platform to confer market
advantage in higher-layer markets. I'm sure they would if they could,
if such easy, undetectable market manipulation tools were at their
fingertips, but they can't so they won't.
PS Adding a crisp irony to this whole line of hypocrisy thinking, do
a Google search on "net neutrality" and the highlighted sponsored
link is to an ANTI-net neutrality website. Whether or not you click
on it is totally, completely your choice--unlike ANTI-neutrality TV
commercials where you must take action in order NOT to see it.
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/