WebProNews

We have an intrinsic and well-supported mistrust of the major broadband providers in the telecom and cable industries. It has been suggested search engines need just as much scrutiny.

Search Neutrality Before Net Neutrality

The assumptions of fairness assigned to search engines and their algorithmic work have come about because we believe computers act as the ultimate neutral arbiter of rules. Programmers and administrators have long known computers give back what has been given to them, no more and no less.

Nemertes Research president and chief research officer Johna Till Johnson thinks Google gets a lot more benefit of the doubt than it deserves. Her NetworkWorld article on Google and net neutrality suggested that Google has parlayed this way of thinking about computers into a mindset where only Google can truly judge neutrality:

On Planet Google, what “openness” really means is “other companies should share their resources so Google can gain a competitive edge.” And “neutrality” means “telcos can’t be trusted to charge fair market rates for the use of their infrastructure, and we need the feds to force them to.”

And the kicker? None of this applies to Google itself. Google can be trusted to do the right thing because . . . well, the company says so.

There isn't much disagreement with the opinion that telcos need the firm hand and stern oversight of the only entity that can keep them in check. The telcos themselves confirmed they charge a generous markup for broadband access:

"Over time, the migration from multicasting to video-on-demand and unicasting has a huge impact on what happens in the core of the network," Kafka said. "That changes the way we need to look at broadband." Today's average residential broadband user consumes about 2 gigabytes of data per month, Kafka estimated, which costs the service provider about $1. As downloading feature films becomes more popular, they might consume an average of 9 gigabytes per month, costing carriers $4.50.

We pay $40 a month for a dollar's worth of service as of 2006. Again, this does not engender much trust in the telco broadband provider industry.

Johnson sees similarities in Google, and what it does and doesn't present to searchers. Solving such problems could be accomplished with a little search neutrality. Johnson invited Google to give it a try:

Google wants net neutrality? Great! Virtue begins at home. Let the company first propose federal regulation of all search engines to ensure “neutral” rankings of search results, and to guarantee that information isn’t getting concealed (or revealed) for political purposes. Let’s see Google regulate itself — then we’ll consider regulating its competition.

Google lost a lot of trust after one of their account planners posted a too-honest pitch to potential health advertisers on an official blog. Her post offered healthcare businesses Google ads as a way to counter all the publicity generated by Michael Moore's movie 'Sicko'.

It was a revelatory post, and two efforts by Google to distance itself from it haven't changed the essential message: Google's care about openness and other issues stops at the bottom line, their philanthropic efforts notwithstanding.

Since Google's brand name draws attention, we won't be surprised if someone in Washington DC decides to take Johnson up on her idea and draft a little search neutrality legislation. The utility of the search industry for millions of computer users makes it a tempting target.