Google 'sold out the net neutrality hippies' in 2008

Company acts in own interest shocker


Broadsight analyst Alan Patrick isn't the type to pat himself on the back, but he can be forgiven for doing so today. Google threw the Net Neutrality campaign under a bus this week, publishing a set of policy principles it's thrashed out with Verizon. But two years ago Patrick predicted such a detente was inevitable, forecasting that Google would abandon the "hippy" hangers-on who backed the campaign.

At first, Google supported the campaign for new regulation for the reason Ted Dziuba so nicely explained here in his piece Google disguises capitalism as civil rights. Google's view was, Ted paraphrased:

Network neutrality is necessary to keep the service providers from charging us up the ass. We want to run our business how we please, but you should force the internet service providers to run their business how we please. It's just really convenient for us that way. Please, government, step in and save us.

At the basic level, Google now acknowledges that it needs a distributor's pipes and masts, and a distributor needs Google's content and services. Google UK's DJ Collins emphasised that again on Radio 4 News yesterday.

It was from this basic mutual relationship, Patrick correctly predicted back in December 2008, that Google's policy would change as it built out its own private network.

Google had deeper pockets, and in YouTube was distributing more valuable "stuff". It was therefore in a position to leverage these strengths. At the time, he points out, investment in "Freemium" services was drying up and real returns on capital were being demanded. Google saw that it would get more business from tiered services and pricing models than it would by supporting the hippies' campaign to outlaw them.

"Google appears to be realizing that net non-neutrality would actually be a boon to business--because it can afford to pay preferential fees that other companies can't. Microsoft, Yahoo, and others appear to be realizing the same thing," he wrote.

And as it began to install edge caching servers at ISPs, it also saw that neutrality legislation would come round and bite it, too.

"Google … played Net Neutrality until it could effectively peer at Tier 1 level, and it will now do that until it has built its own backbone network."

As I wrote here, Google may now be the largest private network in the world - we'll see when this year's Atlas survey is published. It was nowhere in 2007, and No.3 last year.

In other words, this story only had one ending. Today Patrick writes:

"So all the gnashing of teeth and wailing, calling Google a 'Surrender Monkey' is to me a sign of Tech bloggers being either largely incompetent or asleep at their terminals for the last 2 years."

Give me free stuff

All that remained was to chuck the Hippies overboard. But some jumped before they were pushed.

The deftest bit of footwork of all was shown by Ben Scott, policy director of the lobby group Free Press. For the past few years Scott had been the voice of net neutrality. In April, he pushed off to join the Obama administration as a policy advisor at the State Department. It was great timing. Net neutrality had been a useful career ladder. He could see the ladder was about to be kicked away.

Patrick also has a good observation on how the neutrality campaign shifted into self-destruct mode:

"The initial idea was to assume that you got Freedom of Access no matter who you were. This was later conflated by some more Web 2.0 hippie types into Freedom of Assets."

Indeed, and this was never illustrated better than by our ever sane and rational friend Cory Doctorow, here:

I say, it's our dirt, so we make the rules. If they don't like those rules, let them get their goddamned wires out of our dirt, off our streets, out of our basements. Let's give them 60 days, and if they haven't pulled up their wires by then, we'll buy them for the scrappage price of the copper.
Net neutrality: Save Google. Save this lot.

Net Neutrality campaigners in 2006. What will they do now?

I'd disagree that the neutrality campaign morphed from one goal to another. It's more accurate to say that it was always a blank canvas upon which people projected their worst fears. It started out vague, became vaguer, and gradually became all things to all men. If you look at the history of ideas, however, it clearly belongs to the utopian school of thinking - that digital networks are a pure, unsullied pasture of goodness and freeness. Anyone who makes money from selling access to bits, or places a value on those bits (as copyright businesses tend to do) is engaging in something decidedly grubby - they're pooing in the meadow.

This is a childish intellectual prejudice, and it's dying out in the copyright debates just as it's dying out in debates about network policy. It's just a shame that in copyright, we haven't yet got the free flowing content market that really unleashes the technologies of sharing.

But we'll get there, eventually. ®

Broader topics


Other stories you might like

  • DuckDuckGo tries to explain why its browsers won't block some Microsoft web trackers
    Meanwhile, Tails 5.0 users told to stop what they're doing over Firefox flaw

    DuckDuckGo promises privacy to users of its Android, iOS browsers, and macOS browsers – yet it allows certain data to flow from third-party websites to Microsoft-owned services.

    Security researcher Zach Edwards recently conducted an audit of DuckDuckGo's mobile browsers and found that, contrary to expectations, they do not block Meta's Workplace domain, for example, from sending information to Microsoft's Bing and LinkedIn domains.

    Specifically, DuckDuckGo's software didn't stop Microsoft's trackers on the Workplace page from blabbing information about the user to Bing and LinkedIn for tailored advertising purposes. Other trackers, such as Google's, are blocked.

    Continue reading
  • Despite 'key' partnership with AWS, Meta taps up Microsoft Azure for AI work
    Someone got Zuck'd

    Meta’s AI business unit set up shop in Microsoft Azure this week and announced a strategic partnership it says will advance PyTorch development on the public cloud.

    The deal [PDF] will see Mark Zuckerberg’s umbrella company deploy machine-learning workloads on thousands of Nvidia GPUs running in Azure. While a win for Microsoft, the partnership calls in to question just how strong Meta’s commitment to Amazon Web Services (AWS) really is.

    Back in those long-gone days of December, Meta named AWS as its “key long-term strategic cloud provider." As part of that, Meta promised that if it bought any companies that used AWS, it would continue to support their use of Amazon's cloud, rather than force them off into its own private datacenters. The pact also included a vow to expand Meta’s consumption of Amazon’s cloud-based compute, storage, database, and security services.

    Continue reading
  • Atos pushes out HPC cloud services based on Nimbix tech
    Moore's Law got you down? Throw everything at the problem! Quantum, AI, cloud...

    IT services biz Atos has introduced a suite of cloud-based high-performance computing (HPC) services, based around technology gained from its purchase of cloud provider Nimbix last year.

    The Nimbix Supercomputing Suite is described by Atos as a set of flexible and secure HPC solutions available as a service. It includes access to HPC, AI, and quantum computing resources, according to the services company.

    In addition to the existing Nimbix HPC products, the updated portfolio includes a new federated supercomputing-as-a-service platform and a dedicated bare-metal service based on Atos BullSequana supercomputer hardware.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022