Google lashes out at critic over 'payola punditry'
Google's staff representatives in Washington, D.C., are famously mild-mannered. But they showed a flash of steel on Thursday in a response to an incendiary article written by a political adversary paid by AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and other communications companies.
The article in question was written by Scott Cleland, who alleged that Google is not paying its "fair share of the Internet's cost." He calculated that it uses 16.5 percent of all consumer Internet traffic this year yet pays only a fraction of that in bandwidth costs.
Cleland's anti-Net neutrality group, NetCompetition.org, is paid by telecommunications and cable companies to be a full-time, 24-7 Google critic. Some examples of Cleland-isms: "Google steals," it connives in a "modern-day Machiavellian plot," and its executives dress funny.
Google has generally let those fusillades--and those creative astroturfing efforts organized against it--pass without much public comment. But Cleland's latest article prompted Richard Whitt, Google's Washington telecom counsel, to respond.
On the company's blog, Whitt lashed out at what he called Cleland's "payola punditry." He said: "We don't fault Mr. Cleland for trying to do his job. But it's unfortunate that the phone and cable companies funding his work would rather launch poorly researched broadsides than help solve consumers' problems."
And: "Mr. Cleland's calculations about YouTube's impact are similarly flawed. Here he confuses "market share" with 'traffic share.' YouTube's share of video traffic is decidedly smaller than its market share. And typical YouTube traffic takes up far less bandwidth than downloading or streaming a movie."
In other words, a low-quality streaming YouTube video takes only a small fraction of the bandwidth of a high-definition TV show, which iTunes is now offering. Another way to make that point is to realize that one company may sell a million vehicles and another may sell 100,000, but that doesn't say anything about the total vehicle weight--a million bicycles have nowhere near the same mass as 100,000 Mack trucks.
For his part, in two brief telephone conversations on Thursday, Cleland stands by his work. He says, regarding his corporate sponsors: "I am fully disclosed."
About the criticisms raised by Google, Cleland replied: "I took a difficult subject that's never been written about before...This was a straightforward, transparent attempt to estimate something of significance."
Don't think this debate is going to be over anytime soon. The telecommunications and cable lobbyists turned to Cleland around the same time as Google and its left-coast allies (eBay, Amazon.com) were on the legislative attack and demanding sweeping, intrusive Net neutrality laws. Congress rejected them at the time. But with the Democrats about to control the legislative and executive branches, and with President-elect Barack Obama's clearly stated views on the topic, look for round two in the Net neutrality wars, contra my earlier predictions, to erupt next year.
Disclaimer: Declan McCullagh is married to a Google employee.
Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan.





Their research suggests that Youtube will capture nearly 88% of the video-to-pc market and 44% of the video-to-tv by 2010. I can apply the same linear logic to suggest that by the middle of next year, the DJI will be at 0. That's how stupid Cleland is.
Oh yeah, and they tried to turn the highway usage-tax on its head, by arguing that heavy users (trucks/cargo) get taxed more. Except of course, they forget that the tax is passed down to the consumer through higher prices (did Cleland forget all those fuel surcharges this summer).
But you know, advocates will simply use quotes from his study - as proof - of an unfair world without congestion pricing. As it is, broadband providers already have congestion pricing by way of different pricing for different speeds and limits.
The question is, does the broadband company have the right to slow down CERTAIN traffic? Do the rich get to have their cake and eat it too?
Their research suggests that Youtube will capture nearly 88% of the video-to-pc market and 44% of the video-to-tv by 2010. I can apply the same linear logic to suggest that by the middle of next year, the DJI will be at 0. That's how Cleland works.
Oh yeah, and they tried to turn the highway usage-tax on its head, by arguing that heavy users (trucks/cargo) get taxed more. Except of course, they forget that the tax is passed down to the consumer through higher prices (did Cleland forget all those fuel surcharges this summer).
But you know, advocates will simply use quotes from his study - as proof - of an unfair world without congestion pricing. As it is, broadband providers already have congestion pricing by way of different pricing for different speeds and limits.
The question is, does the broadband company have the right to slow down CERTAIN traffic? Do the rich get to have their cake and eat it too?
It's not the content providers fault that ISPs refuse to take a practical approach to their bandwidth pricing.
Google has come up with businesses that allow it to proliferate on the Internet, while getting customers to pony up their own hosting to participate in Google technology. Good for them. Screw the huge communications companies who have sour grapes because they own the networks and never were able to leverage in a similar way.
Think this is called HYPOCRACY when Google doesn't raise ire over those occasions!
Plus why can't people love Apple products? Is there some unwritten law?
leo la porte and mossberg (spell it right webster!) are NOT paid-off. you must have listened or read much of what they have written or podcast. Your rant of slander barely touched on the issue.
I completely agree with Google's argument & I guess you do too
People are buying their bandwidth from some companies; the companies have already been paid for providing the bits both ways. Why don't they just shut up and be the dumb pipes we all want them to be.
I have yet to hear about the cell phone companies (other than Sprint, who f'd up with their lack of "cool" phones) or cable companies shedding employees. Let's see their financial books and dig a little deeper here to see if they're really losing money thanks to Google (and their customers who use YouTube). Somehow, I don't think so with crap like the bandwidth caps...
The cell providers are no better. They grossly overcharge for their monthly plans, and price gouge on text messaging.
The U.S. needs many connectivity providers, and if properly managed there is more than enough bandwidth to go around--cheaply!
Let me give you an example I'm sure YOU'LL understand:
Umm, your ex-girlfriend just paid me $1,000 to tell everyone you're gay. Not only that, she gave me your picture and has me posting it and your phone number on every 'hot gay sex' forum on the internet.
Of course by your logic, I'm doing nothing wrong since I'm getting paid. I'm just lobbying right?
Since I'm a ***** for money and don't care about you at all either way, it's O.K. and if you don't like it... you can pay me $10,000 and I'll stop -- or will I? After all, the money's good and I'm in it for the money - not ethics or morals or conscience.
Google pays for every last bit of bandwidth they use as do I the consumer. It's not possible for it to work any other way. Attempts to portray that simple concept in any other light can never succeed.
-
by zeroplane
December 5, 2008 9:20 AM PST
- Well, I am no Google fan but I am also certainly not a fanboy for any of the telecommunications dinosaurs that exist now.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 34 Comments >>What this sounds like to me is "waaahhhh Google is more popular than us! Waaaahhh! Just because Google works as in the lunch room and provides classmates with tasty, cheesy, macaroni and cheese at lunch. It somehow makes Google more popular, wwwaaaaaah than me. Why Google wouldn't even get to serve tasty macaroni and cheese for lunch if it weren't for my friends and me hauling the boxes from the delivery truck into the lunch room, wwwaaahhh, ****'n whine!
Google gets all the credit and is so popular, look at their stock (looks at his stock) wwwaahhhh, wwwhhine. I have spent a lot of money on weights, running shoes, and bribing delivery drivers. What has Google done? Google is totally getting popular off of my effort!