Neutering the 'Net

[Commentary] Here's where the real fight begins. Google has been one of the most influential Network Neutrality proponents. But Google also understands, as its chief Eric Schmidt recently put it, "It's very, very important that the telecom operators have enough capital to continue the build-outs." Google's trick will be to lobby for the optimum of Internet socialism—"tiered" pricing may be OK, in which some consumers pay extra for a bigger pipe. But usage-based pricing that would give consumers a reason to think twice before clicking on a Google-sponsored ad? It would be the end of Google's business model. And Google has allies. The greatest fear of Microsoft, Amazon, eBay and Yahoo is having to plumb their deep pockets and offer competing payments to broadband carriers to speed their bits to consumers. They much prefer spending their money to sprinkle server farms around the globe, assuring fast, reliable access for their customers in a way that no newcomer can easily replicate. What if some startup Google sought to achieve the same goal by outsourcing its data management to the telecos, say, by mounting servers in their premises to help deliver Web applications more quickly? This would be a win-win for both parties. Data that travels within a carrier's system is cheaper to deliver than data that must be handed off between two or more carriers. Would such an arrangement be a violation of net neutrality? Google would likely shriek so. But then, for all the grass-roots pose, Network Neutrality has always been a weapon in the hands of status-quo companies trying to protect themselves against technological change. First AOL, now Google: A lot of things may be new under the sun, but regulatory incentives aren't one of them.