I think it's important to point out that firms like Google which have supported net neutrality, have done so to support their own business models.
Microsoft 'cloned' google and created Bing in a very short time. As computing power increases this task gets easier and easier. Plausibly, comcast could create its own "google" and direct all search traffic there. It could sell ads and use the ad revenue to lower monthly subscription fees to its customers.
If the service works well enough (i.e., if google is actually clonable) then most consumers wouldn't care. That's precisely Google's concern. Why should it give up its revenue so that Comcast can start its own revenue stream?
Think about Google's share price and all the billions of dollars of ad revenue. That's what this issue is about. Google has invested hugely in becoming "infrastructure" but the price of cloning that infrastructure is quickly decreasing... so Google is trying to stop it by any means necessary.
Plausibly, comcast could create its own "google" and direct all search traffic there. It could sell ads and use the ad revenue to lower monthly subscription fees to its customers.
Except they wouldn't do that. They would use QoS to make sure their search engine was the only one usable to their customers and then they would charge extra for access to the search engine as an added feature.
What's wrong with that? Do you really think there would be so little benefit from building a good search engine that Comcast would build a lousy one? They could even license one from any number of third parties.
Well sure, that's the point - there would be little benefit from building a good search engine if you couldn't choose a different one. Google has to be great because otherwise somebody will get all its traffic. A monopoly can give lousy service because you can't leave.
True, but if the search engine is lousy there won't be much traffic. Google has gone to great lengths to build a service that lots of us wouldn't want to live without. So why worry?
"I think it's important to point out that firms like Google which have supported net neutrality, have done so to support their own business models."
Right - business models which depend on competition. As opposed to those that depend on blocking customers' access to your competitors.
Comcast is welcome to steal market share from Google the old fashioned way - by building a better product. I'll use it. But if I log on and find I have no choice - well then I'm pissed.
Everybody lobbies for their business model. But which kind of business model did Adam Smith have in mind? Which kind creates value and which kind destroys it?
Which kind creates value and which kind destroys it?
Creative bundling has always been a part of the history of innovation. What we're talking about here is the possible bundling of last mile and search.
Google thinks this is a nice bundle, as is evidenced by its fiber explorations, Topeka, etc.
There are a lot of innovative ways that bundling could make consumers better off... We don't notice most of them b/c we just take it for granted that they are sensible.
When is the last time you complained about buying a bundle of a beverage + regrigeration? Or about buying a car + tires?
Bundling works in some markets when there are economies of scale to be gained by merging two things.
Consider that comcast would have better demographic data to power its search/advertising engine, and comcast could also merge in tv habits data. As the internet and TV merge this is going to become huge.
What does it mean? Maybe that some of that ad revenue that is paying Google's shareholders could instead be used to subsidize high quality broadband for the masses while enriching Comcast's shareholders.
All in all, firms wouldn't want to do it if it wouldn't result in more profit. Unless you believe that google is a lucky accident (rather than a business that only makes money because it satisfies customers) then you shouldn't worry about net neutrality.
Microsoft 'cloned' google and created Bing in a very short time. As computing power increases this task gets easier and easier. Plausibly, comcast could create its own "google" and direct all search traffic there. It could sell ads and use the ad revenue to lower monthly subscription fees to its customers.
If the service works well enough (i.e., if google is actually clonable) then most consumers wouldn't care. That's precisely Google's concern. Why should it give up its revenue so that Comcast can start its own revenue stream?
Think about Google's share price and all the billions of dollars of ad revenue. That's what this issue is about. Google has invested hugely in becoming "infrastructure" but the price of cloning that infrastructure is quickly decreasing... so Google is trying to stop it by any means necessary.