Blog Post

Is Google Changing Its Position on Net Neutrality?

Is Google, the foremost corporate advocate of net neutrality, doing a big fake? Have they succeeded in making everyone believe they will stand up to the Bell companies, even as the company cuts deals to become the preferred provider on a carrier’s network? It sure sounds like it, listening to some recent public comments from one of the company’s top policy execs.

Consider the statements made by Google Senior Policy Counsel Andrew McLaughlin at the Tech Policy Summit in San Jose on Feb. 27:

“Net neutrality will ultimately be solved by competition in the long-run,” describing fiber, broadband over power lines, and wireless efforts to crack “the existing telco-cable duopoly.”What he said next got many bloggers talking:

“Cutting the FCC out the picture would probably be a smart move. It is much better to think of this as an FTC or unfair competition type of problem.”

That would be the Federal TRADE Commission, the new kid on the net neutrality block. Promoting the authority of the FTC, and constricting the Bell-friendly Federal COMMUNICATIONS Commission, has been a pet project the market-oriented Progress and Freedom Foundation think tank. (Conspiratorialists, take note: Google became a “supporter” of PFF sometime between April 4 and Dec. 26 of 2005.)

More significant is what McLaughlin said next. Peter Pitsch, Intel’s director of communications policy, asked: “I inferred from what you said about [net neutrality] that you would not object to [carriers] making a particular offering, as long as that offering were made available on a non-discriminatory basis?”

“That is my view,” replied McLaughlin. He described a “strong” view of neutrality in which carriers are forbidden from charging companies for quality-of-service (QoS) guarantees “because that breaks the free and open model” of the Internet. “There is a more pragmatic view that it is OK [to charge] as long as it is done in a non-discriminatory way.”

“The first view, the strong view of net neutrality, has some very powerful arguments, but the reason we wouldn’t go for it” is purely pragmatic, McLaughlin said. Bell companies are going down the road of paid QoS, so it would be better to find a non-discrimination rule that worked.

“The danger of paid QoS is that it becomes the normality default, and the best efforts Internet is left to atrophy,” he continued. That would be a disaster for all of us. Competition, through different network alternatives, is going to ameliorate that danger.”

McLaughlin’s statements have caused a fair bit of angst within Google, and also within several of the so-called “Group of Six” companies that coalesced last year to take on the Bells. (The others were Amazon, eBay, InterActive Corp., Microsoft and Yahoo!)

A lobbyist at one of these five companies voiced resignation and disgust. “We have always known that someone would walk” from the coalition – and that it would be a cash-rich companies like Google that did so. The fact that Google walks, in the view of this source,
“proves that we need a law” on net neutrality.

Microsoft deserted the gang as early as last July, when it took its name off an It’s Our Net communiqué urging Senators to reject net neutrality compromises. Microsoft, torn between its desire for telecom liberalization and its fear of Whitacreization, desperately wanted compromise. And now, apparently, so does McLaughlin.

In fairness, the Google/McLaughlin view still seeks some form of net neutrality legislation – but just not leading versions by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Me., or by Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey, the newly minted chairman of the House Internet and Telecommunications Subcommittee. Both of those bills would require QoS enhancement to be funded by consumers, not businesses.

Here, by contrast, is the Google/PR view: “No one has yet figured out how to offer QoS for content applications in a way that does not discriminate, so in Google’s view, it should not be allowed.” As to McLaughlin’s heresy, Adam Kovacevich, the company’s official public policy spokesman, said, “This is an area when Andrew has a personal view.”

Conspiratorialists have also been pointing to an August 2006 forum (of the Progress and Freedom Foundation) in which David Drummond, Google’s general counsel, took issue with Tod Cohen, director of government affairs for eBay, who wanted net neutrality rules applied to wireless devices. “We are not sure that the wireless world is the same, and this may be where we part company,” said Drummond. A few months later, Google and Verizon Wireless announced their deal allowing “V CAST consumers to access a selection of YouTube videos from their mobile phones exclusively for a limited time.”

When Google’s views on net neutrality flared early last month month on this blog Paul Kapustka said that “if Google were to suddenly change course on network neutrality or Web TV, it would probably pick a more prominent place and person to make the announcement.” How much more prominent must it be than the top public policy official speaking in Silicon Valley?

31 Responses to “Is Google Changing Its Position on Net Neutrality?”

  1. GOOG can easily go both ways on this one. It has said that it could afford to pay for the bandwidth but it has chosen to side for net neutrality. However, it can change its mind, nothing is for ever…

  2. “Conspiratorialists” why do you have to use that word. They are just normal concerned people. Quit separating people with that term, just call them people. Okay?

  3. The Leslie Apartments hotel is situated in the very centre of Budapest on the Pest side of the city. In vicinity there is a guarded open-air car park which can be found 80m away from the Leslie Apartments. There is a great number of restaurants, beer-halls, music-pubs and many other places for entertainment in the neighbourhood.

  4. Let’s say there are three views about Net Neutrality:

    Option 1: Do nothing, or at least do nothing until the FCC or the FTC has a specific complaint about anti-competitive behavior.

    Option 2: Ban a network provider from charging other businesses to offer a speedier tier of delivery, which we’ll call Quality of Service (QoS).

    Option 3: Don’t band the network provider from offering QoS, but do require them to offer that that same QoS deal to other companies on non-discriminatory rates and terms.

    The Bell companies and their supporters, obviously, want Option 1. Google, eBay, Amazon and Yahoo! have been been pushing for Option 2, as with many other organizations, including Save the Internet. Microsoft and others have been toying with finding some kind of proposal similar to Option 3.

    My column was all about how, with McLaughlin’s comments, some top-level officials at Google are teetering between Options 2 and 3. It is entirely predictable that Google officials would deny that they were teerering.

    Indeed, my column reported that “McLaughlin’s statements have caused a fair bit of angst within Google” — as well as quoting company spokesman Adam Kovacevich as saying that “Andrew [McLaughlin] has a personal view” on the subject.

  5. Jim, Hands Off is an advocacy coalition made up of telecommunications companies as well as nonprofits and other associations. We are advocating against net neutrality as we believe more government regulation inhibits freedom and choice. We have the right to an opinion just as groups like Save the Internet do.

    And Professor Simpleton is against net neutrality too.

  6. jim fertile

    HOTI, i’m wondering if you have a response to the characterization of your organization by the Center for Media & Democracy’s “Source Watch” web site as, quote: “a classic astroturf group… [whose] membership is dominated by telecommunications companies and conservative lobby groups”? i think your answer would be fairly pertinent to this discussion.

  7. This story has fired up the AT&T shills and Astroturf groups who are stumbling over themselves to declare disarray among Net Neutrality supporters.

    Once again, the Net naysayers got it wrong. Surprised by what appeared to be a Google about face, we actually called the company to ask them where they stand. (You would hope that any good reporter would have done the same.)

    “Google’s position on Net Neutrality has not changed one bit,” Google spokesman Adam Kovacevich told us. We asked him to put it in writing. He emailed us this:

  8. It seems Google wants to have its cake and eat it too. They know deep down that there is a bandwidth crunch, especially when it comes to IPTV but they don’t want to admit that someone needs to make the investments to handle its new applications.

    Google has been treading carefully on net neutrality but my organization, Hands Off the Internet, hopes they realize its in the best interest of consumers and the economy to leave well enough alone.

  9. Hell yes they are faking their pro neutrality stance. Do you think they are going to the trouble of building a free isp for so they can just give it away to their competition? Hell no they aren’t, they are building the free isp so they own the customer packets 100% of the time and the only way to do that is to have a private, end to end network.

    Net neutrality is not in google’s best interests and it never will be. Don’t believe it is or you will be disappointed for a long time.

  10. hedgefund harry

    Sandman, do a search on both yahoo and google for the same thing…results are almost identical.

    then, look at a chart of both stocks side by side since 2007 beagn. the winds are shifting.

    yhoo will never surpass goog share price, but 2007 wil be the year where their respective market caps get MUCH closer together.

  11. Sandman, hope Viacom wins their lawsuit. That can you be your boycott.

    It’s funny, I haven’t heard Google state their “Don’t be evil” mantra in quite some time, or really do anything that seems to be in line with it.