[IP] more on Google and 'neutrality' hypocrisy
As a usg witness at the MS trial, YUP!!!
Begin forwarded message:
From: Gerry Faulhaber <gerry-faulhaber@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: June 22, 2006 2:44:36 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] Google and 'neutrality' hypocrisy
Interesting argument about why it's OK for Google to discrimiinate.
Almost all the arguments in defense of Google could be used in
defense of Microsoft, the (near-) monopolist everyone loves to hate.
And Microsoft did advance all these arguments in its ill-fated
antitrust case, to great derision (e.g., its concern about potential
competitors, low switching costs, and free IE/cheap OS). Perhaps we
should exercise some consistency here.
Professor Gerald R. Faulhaber
Business and Public Policy Dept.
Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Professor of Law
University of Pennsylvania Law School
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Farber" <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 11:58 AM
Subject: [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 gerry-faulhaber@xxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
people/
-------------------------------------
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/