Re: { I second Dave djf} Richard Bennett Op-Ed in the San Francisco Chronicle

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

________________________________________
From: David P. Reed [dpreed () reed com]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 4:35 AM
To: David Farber
Cc: ip
Subject: Re: [IP] Richard Bennett Op-Ed in the San Francisco Chronicle

Dave - Just a small response to this, since no one seems to have
responded to your posting on IP of this opinion piece.

I find it extraordinary that the author of the op-ed goes to such
lengths of rhetorical construction to imply that the broad interest in
"network neutrality" is centrally organized and orchestrated by Google
to maximize its competitive strength.

This may be an interesting conjecture that sells newspapers, but where
is the evidence that those of us who are concerned about "deep packet
inspection" (by NebuAd, Phorm, Sandvine, the NSA, ...) are all the
"tools and fellow travelers" of Google.

It sounds to me like red-baiting.   If someone has an opinion that
happens to line up with a commercial interest of Google, one is "working
for Google".

Doesn't make sense.

Note: I don't work for Google, and have in the past pointed out reasons
we should worry about Google's neutrality.

David Farber wrote:
> ________________________________________
> From: Richard Bennett [richard () bennett com]
>
>
> Here's my piece on Google, Yahoo, and net neutrality from today's San Francisco Chronicle.
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/08/EDBH11LNQS.DTL
>
> Google's political head-fake
>
> Richard Bennett
>
> Wednesday, July 9, 2008
>
> The devil's best trick is to persuade us that he doesn't exist, but Google only has to convince us that it's not 
> evil. Nearing an agreement with Yahoo to grab the ailing company's search business, Google scripted a series of 
> dramatic public events apparently designed to distract from the pending deal. These events emphasize network 
> neutrality, an ever-changing regulatory ideal that Google thrust into the political spotlight two years ago. As 
> entertaining as this spectacle is, regulators should not be fooled. They should apply traditional anti-monopoly 
> standards, blocking the Google-Yahoo deal.
>
> The deal, as currently structured, substantially alters the Internet economy. Advertising is the prime revenue stream 
> for social networks, news sites and Internet aggregators of all kinds, and it's closely linked to search. Instead of 
> a search market where three players compete vigorously for eyeballs, this deal would create a status quo where the 
> top dog enjoys an 85 percent market share and the ability to set prices for search ads with no fear of being undercut 
> by its much weaker sole competitor. This should set alarms clanging wherever antitrust and personal privacy concerns 
> are held dear, but it hasn't.
>
> The centerpiece of Google's net neutrality misdirection campaign, a new initiative to bring faster broadband at lower 
> prices to American consumers, was book-ended by Google CEO Eric Schmidt's visit to Washington and a public 
> endorsement of heavy broadband regulation by Internet pioneer and Google Vice President Vint Cerf. The initiative, 
> Internet for Everyone, is virtually identical to earlier network neutrality organizations, It's Our Net and Save the 
> Internet. Each of these organizations was fronted by rock-star intellectuals such as Lawrence Lessig, co-founder of 
> the Google-funded Stanford Center for Internet and Society, and his protégé, Tim Wu, the new chairman of the advocacy 
> group Free Press.
>
> Net neutrality is largely seen as an obscure but noble cause, so it's a safe issue for an image-conscious corporation 
> to embrace. Google had largely abandoned it in the months before the recent publicity blitz, probably because of how 
> the issue had morphed in the preceding year.
>
> Initially, network neutrality was the demand that network carriers ignore the Internet's fundamental inequality. 
> Google had good reason to advocate this, because it is advantaged by a status quo in which money buys privilege. Any 
> move by carriers to selectively boost speeds for fees dulls the advantage Google has secured for itself by building 
> huge complexes of hundreds of thousands of computers.
>
> These complexes exploit a flaw in Internet architecture that enables them to seize more than their fair share of 
> network bandwidth, effectively giving their owner a fast lane. A richly funded Web site, which delivers data faster 
> than its competitors to the front porches of the Internet service providers, wants it delivered the rest of the way 
> on an equal basis. This system, which Google calls broadband neutrality, actually preserves a more fundamental 
> inequality.
>
> The latest turn in the network neutrality debate - emphasizing the fair management of bandwidth-intensive 
> file-sharing applications - left Google on the sideline. Cooperation between peer-to-peer networks and carriers 
> enhances the value of both, and creates a more powerful and less expensive alternative to private networks - which is 
> counter to Google's interests.
>
> Despite its carefully crafted public image as a naive and squeaky-clean innovator, Google is a public corporation 
> managed by professionals, some of them longtime friends of Washington power brokers and fully capable of 
> understanding the problems the Google-Yahoo deal poses.
>
> The tech press has been too busy reprising its Internet Bubble era cheerleading and cooing about Google's network 
> neutrality "idealism" to raise questions about the demise of Yahoo as a search competitor. Fortunately, the Justice 
> Department is investigating, and Congress has planned several hearings, including one today.
>
> Any anti-competitive concerns motivating the net neutrality movement are theoretical, as no single carrier today has 
> the power to fix prices. Consumers have an increasing menu of options for broadband networks, many of them wireless. 
> A search monopoly is, however, a true gatekeeper, directing Web surfers toward some sites and away from others. When 
> that power is combined with the ability to set prices for advertising, it's a disaster not only for the Web but for 
> democracy.
>
> Senate hearing
>
> What: Public hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation to consider the state of the 
> online advertising industry
>
> When: 10 a.m., today
>
> Where: Room 253, Sam Rayburn Building, Washington
>
> Why: There is concern that tracking individual's Internet activities violates their privacy
>
> To learn more: Go to links.sfgate.com/ZECG<http://links.sfgate.com/ZECG>
>
> Richard Bennett is a Bay Area network architect and inventor. He was an expert witness at the FCC's February field 
> hearing on net neutrality and a frequent conference speaker.
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com