NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Google, ISPs, and "Monopolies"
Anti-net-neutrality forces seem to have converged on a common set of talking points where they attempt to use a spurious "but Google is worse" defense to explain away the anti-competitive ISP situation in the U.S.
Even a cursory examination of the Internet environment demonstrates
the inanity of the comparison.
Yes.
[snip]
Let's not confuse Google's large market share with the sorely limited
ISP marketplace. Google's share is based almost entirely on consumer
satisfaction -- by individual users, by sites that use their ad and analytics services, and so on. Yes, in total Google collects a lot
of data across the Internet ecosystem, but this is almost entirely the
result of voluntary decisions by users at various levels, not the result
of an artificially constrained marketplace as in the case of ISPs.
This is the key point, IMAO. So much so that I think it was a mistake even to mention that Google is dependent on ISPs. They are, but that's irrelevant to why they shouldn't be considered a "monopoly" in the same way as ILECs and cablecos.
I think it's unfortunate that Lauren even brought this up, because opponents of NN might latch onto it as a red herring to drag across the trail.
Google consistently ranks very high in consumer satisfaction for a range of Internet services.
Again a key point. Google can maintain their market share *only* by keeping their "customers" (users) happy. The minute that people find another search engine (or video sharing system, or mapping system, or image search, or...) more useful than Google's, they will desert it in a matter of months if not weeks.
I remember a few years back Google tried putting paid advertisers at the top of their results. That lasted a few months, IIRC. User's didn't like it, and Google had to adapt -- or die. Now you get the "sponsored links" in a sidebar. Google still has to sell ads to pay for their net connections, Terabytes (Petabytes?) of storage, multiple fast computers (to do the searching), development, etc. But they *must* do it in a way that doesn't piss off their users, or the users -- the reason d'etre of the advertising -- will go somewhere else.
Yet ask people how they feel about their DSL or Cable provider, and outpourings of affection for these ISPs are usually not exactly forthcoming. Telephone and cable companies still tend to rank very low on customer satisfaction lists.
I was happy with Communicom when they were my ISP. I was even happier with the cableco/ISP that preceeded them(*). Then AT&T bought Communicom, and "ATTBI" (AT&T Broadband Internet) was still fairly good. Then AT&T sold their broadband business to Comcast, and service became mediocre. Then there was this big swap between Comcast and Time-Warner. I don't think I can call myself a satisfied customer at any time since that swap.
(*)I have unfortunately forgotten their name. THe main thing I remember was that they were "bankrupt" (that is, in Chapter 11) and that their service -- both cable and ISP -- became very good during that period. Then they were bought by Communicom; I think my main complaint there was that the email address (domain) changed.
Whenever people try to blur the difference between ISPs and Google in their arguments, it should be treated as a red flag that something disingenuous this way comes.
Amen.