more on Google and 'neutrality' hypocrisy

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

As a usg witness at the MS trial, YUP!!!

Begin forwarded message:

From: Gerry Faulhaber <gerry-faulhaber () mchsi com>
Date: June 22, 2006 2:44:36 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
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 () farber net>
To: <ip () v2 listbox com>
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 11:58 AM
Subject: [IP] Google and 'neutrality' hypocrisy


> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: mxu585 <mxu585 () qwest net>
> Date: June 22, 2006 11:55:11 AM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> 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 () mchsi com
> 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 lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/