Comments on: Bennett Sings Telcos’ New Net Neutrality Tune

By: Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 01:41:12 +0000

Google formed “It’s Our Net” in July, 2006. As far as I know, this was the first organization solely focused on passing a net neutrality law. That organization has now morphed into Open Internet Coalition, Save the Internet, and Internet for Everyone, all except STI directly supported by Google money (STI is actually a Free Press front group, but they admit to coordinating closely with Google.)

If an issue falls in a forest and nobody pays for it, does Congress pass a law?

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:18:56 +0000

Thanks for the comments, Richard. I guess in your view “jumping on the bandwagon” equates to leading the charge, but I will continue to disagree that net neutrality is something engineered specifically by Google. (If you measure the times Google testified before Congress vs. appearances by telco spokespeople, official or otherwise, I think you would still find Google on the short end.) Has Google taken advantage of the movement? Without a doubt. But addressing the issue in an honest and factual way, you can’t simply say (as you did) that Google thrust it into the political spotlight, because that’s simply not true. Jumping on the bandwagon, in my definition, is a long way from leading it.

And I also guess that your BS detector is set to extra-fine when it comes to any unworthy praise of Google; my only point was to perhaps suggest that some cheerleading does not mean that all are cheerleaders, as your essay suggests. I actually think there is a lot more balanced coverage and opinion on these topics than two years ago. Even among the sources you list, there is diversity; I doubt you would ever call C/Net’s Declan McCullagh a Google cheerleader, for instance.

As for why Google was silent on net neutrality recently — not to speak for them, but they were in fact encumbered by the rules of the 700 MHz auctions, which forbid participants from publicly speaking about the proceedings. At the Silicon Flatirons conference in February I asked Whitt several questions (including one about net neutrality) that he simply wouldn’t answer, since he didn’t want to run afoul of the rules of the auction.

As far as addressing things in a factual way instead of (as you suggested), with prejudice, I couldn’t agree more. As I said in the post, I couldn’t imagine a report on net neutrality without your input, so I look forward to meeting soon, and being able to hear your thoughts and visions at length, instead of via the truncated communications of blog posts and comments.

By: Richard Bennett

Richard Bennett — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 22:02:53 +0000

I’d be glad to talk to you about Google, net neutrality, and related topics, but let me endeavor to correct a few factual errors in your post. Google jumped on the net neutrality bandwagon as soon as there was one to jump onto, because Ed Whiteacre called them out by name in the Business Week “they ain’t using my pipes for free” piece. Google was quick to point out that they pay for the bandwidth that ties their private network of server farms together, and for its connection to the public Internet. You don’t need a Washington office to do that, the normal corporate communications function handled it just fine. In the legislative year that followed, Google formed It Our Net and sent people to testify at hearings on the Hill.

Eric Schmidt addressed the Economist Club in Washington DC the first week of June, where he was introduced by long-time friend Vernon Jordan, Bill Clinton’s golfing buddy and king of the DC power brokers.

The elements of the tech press that have engaged in Google cheerleading include Cnet, Techdirt, The Register, and many others. Google announced its anti-neutrality detector the day the Yahoo deal was annonced, and there was more coverage of the vaporware detection tools than of the Yahoo deal. One reporter, Cade Metz, actually attributed Google’s neutrality stance to “idealism” when it has clearly been corporate self-interest.

Google was absent from the FCC hearings on Comcast, and had very little to say about any of that phase of the NN debate. “Internet for Everyone” is an attempt to push NN into a third phase, but it’s all empty rhetoric and no program.

Finally, my concern about the Google-Yahoo deal has less to do with privacy than with monopoly power to set prices. Google is guilty of all the things it’s accused the telcos of doing, and it’s my belief that they should be held to the same standard.

Rather than engage in all this ad hominem speculation, why not address the issues in an honest and factual way? That’s what I try to do, perhaps not always successfully, but that’s another story.