NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] "Search Neutrality" and Propaganda Deluxe
"Search Neutrality" and Propaganda Deluxe
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000658.html
Greetings. When it comes to complex technical issues with political
overtones, muddying the waters is a time-tested technique to try draw
attention away from the pertinent facts.
In recent years, there arguably has been no better example of this
game plan in action than in the way that forces opposed to Net
Neutrality have organized their offenses.
We've seen all manner of fanciful, irrelevant anti-neutrality
arguments thrown into the pot. For example, anti-neutrality
proponents have argued that Internet content edge-caching (like that
used by Akamai, Amazon, Google, and many other Web services) somehow
violates net neutrality principles -- clearly a false assertion.
There have been claims that major, popular Web services represent
monopolies akin to the warped and restricted environment present in
the U.S. Internet access (ISP) landscape -- again, not true -- another
disingenuous attempt to divert consumers and regulators from actual
facts.
Today's New York Times provides a case in point, with a "sour grapes"
op-ed by an author promoting the wacky idea that FCC Net Neutrality
regulations should also include "opinion neutrality" -- oops, sorry
that's not what he actually said -- the term he uses is "search
neutrality" -- but really they amount to the same bizarre concept
( http://bit.ly/657IkH [New York Times] )
There are so many vectors from which to disassemble this "search
neutrality" argument that it's hard to know where to begin.
We can start with the obvious. Unlike most consumers' interactions
with ISPs, changing search services is literally just a single URL
click away. Changing ISPs -- even amongst the extremely limited (if
any) cost-effective broadband choices available to most U.S. Internet
users, is often nothing short of harrowing. Net Neutrality relates
specifically to ISPs because ISPs are -- by definition -- the only
path to the Internet for most Internet users. Every single byte of
data that we send or receive is in the hands of our ISP. No non-ISP
Internet service, even the biggest ones -- come anywhere near such a
universal access to our data.
Add to that the fact that the few large, dominant ISPs who control the
majority of U.S. Internet subscribers are now rapidly moving into the
content provision business (e.g. video), and are deploying usage and
bandwidth caps that impact competitive Internet content but not most
of their own content -- well, the anticompetitive fox guarding the hen
house analogies are impossible to ignore.
The big ISPs have mostly attained their dominant positions by virtue
of their historical, legislatively-mandated monopoly telephone and
cable origins, that gave them an enormous advantage against all
comers. Combine that with the industry's cherry-picking of areas for
high-speed Internet deployments, the telephone industry's decades-long
trail of broken deployment promises, plus their intense lobbying aimed
at restricting effective Internet access competition -- and the
regulatory focus on ISPs is clearly well placed.
The designated enemy of the anti-net-neutrality forces these days is
usually Google. Google is very large and certainly dominant in search
over much of the world. But it attained that position not by buying
politicians to maintain monopolies, nor by attempting to restrict
competition, nor by dirty tricks.
Fundamentally, Google has simply provided better products, that more
people want to use. And anyone else is free to do the same thing, at
least as long as ISPs aren't permitted to strangle the Internet
playing field via their total hold over Internet access to all sites!
Finally (for now) one other point of interest. The author of the
"search neutrality" op-ed in question is apparently upset about how
Google orders search results, especially those of his own company.
But his example of MapQuest's decline in favor of Google Maps
undermines his own case. Almost any unbiased observer would be forced
to admit that Google's maps system has simply represented a more
full-featured product than Mapquest's for many applications.
Similarly, the author's complaints about his own firm's treatment by
Google have been undermined by independent analysis suggesting that
these complaints are the result of his firm's own Internet operational
philosophy and site design, not bias by Google
( http://bit.ly/6gNSWA [Econsultancy] ).
As we're increasingly faced with the intersection of technology,
money, and politics, it is unfortunately inevitable that we'll see
everything (possibly including the kitchen sink) thrown into these
debates by those parties who wish to undermine the true facts -- by
sowing the seeds of confusion among consumers, legislators, and
regulators alike.
But even though these are technically complex matters, they are in
terms of some basic aspects of human experience -- especially when
viewed through the lens of history and past behaviors -- not all that
difficult to understand.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@vortex.com
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
- People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, NNSquad
- Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, GCTIP - Global Coalition
for Transparent Internet Performance - http://www.gctip.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein