In January of this year, the search engine company Google negotiated an arrangement with wireless phone manufacturer Motorola to "integrate a Google icon onto select devices so that users can connect directly to Google anytime, anywhere at the click of a button."
Sounds good to us. Sounds an awful lot like two companies trying to please consumers and doing so through the right of contract.
In February, Google did the same thing with Sony Ericsson, "to integrate the search company's Blogger and Web search features into Sony Ericsson mobile phones."
Again, no problem. Private agreements and private contracts between two companies that will give Google very favorable placement and treatment. In fact, probably overwhelming favorability. No doubt it will be possible to use an alternate search engine on the Sony Ericsson devices, but almost no one will go to the trouble if Google is so easy to use. You're standing on a train, you need to do a quick search. Are you going to choose Google with a single tap, or are you going to go through 5 or 6 taps to get to another search engine?
But these kinds of agreements between companies are all part of the dynamism and experimentation of a free economy. Bully for them.
In August, Google negotiated an agreement with Ebay to be "the exclusive text-based advertising provider for eBay outside the United States."
In all of these cases, Google has entered into a private agreement to make sure that Google has an advantage of placement, access and availability over its search engine competitors. And, at least in the Ebay deal, this is an exclusive deal.
Google thinks it ought to have the right to buy exclusive rights from Ebay, and Ebay thinks it ought to be allowed to sell such rights to Google. And so do we.
And Google is not alone. Yahoo, another major search engine provider, has partnered with Cingular, Nokia and AT&T in similar deals.
Now, as we have made clear, we think these kinds of agreements are perfectly appropriate in a free economy.
So why are Google, Yahoo and Ebay behind a massive "net neutrality" campaign to make it illegal for cable and telecom companies to negotiate the same kinds of arrangements, offering preferential placement, access and treatment?
It seems that when the deal favors Google, Yahoo and Ebay, it's a "feature," but when they are concerned that they might not be able to negotiate such a favorable deal from others, it's the Internet facing a "serious threat," according to Google CEO Eric Schmidt.
Google, Yahoo and Ebay clearly don't believe in neutrality when it comes to wireless phones or auction sites. It's probably appropriate to be cynical about what their real motives are in the net neutrality campaign.
Looks like it's time to Google the word "hypocrite."