Don't Fault Google for Driving Demand for Bandwidth

Last week noted techcom analyst Scott Cleland released a report touting that "Google uses 21 times more bandwidth than it pays for."

It's an unfortunate, ill-timed, and arguably misinformed attempt to attack Google for being a bandwidth hog.

Let's break down a few of the statements made in this press release:

"The study estimated Google used 16.5% of all U.S. consumer Internet traffic in 2008, and that share is estimated to grow to 25% in 2009 and 37% in 2010."
I underlined "used" for emphasis as I don't think it's the right word, more accurate would be to say that Google generated 16.5% of all US consumer Internet traffic. Google didn't decide to use this much bandwidth, they created services people want to use, and this interest in turn generates demand for bandwidth.

"...Google's 16.5% share of all 2008 U.S. consumer bandwidth usage, is ~21 times greater than Google's 0.8% share of U.S. consumer bandwidth costs - or an implicit ~$6.9 billion subsidy of Google by U.S. consumers."
First off, I'm not sure US consumers would mind subsidizing Google; we essentially do so every time we use their search engine. Also, this argument implies that anyone creating bandwidth-intensive applications should help pay for consumers' broadband connections while ignoring that without these apps that need broadband consumers will be less likely to pay for it.

"This research study of Google's usage vs. cost is relevant to the current broadband policy debate, because Google is the driving force behind www.InternetForEveryone.org which is pushing 'to adopt a national plan to bring open, high-speed Internet connections into every home, at a price all of us can afford.' Internet connections could be more affordable for everyone, if Google paid its fair share of the Internet's cost."
Who should Google be paying more to? Should they be subsidizing our broadband bills? Isn't their money better spent innovating and creating new services that take advantage of these networks?

"The study's author, Precursor President Scott Cleland, said: 'While I expect the study to generate a healthy debate over the methodology, assumptions and estimates, any rigorous analysis of the data will lead to the same incontrovertible conclusion of this study -- that Google's U.S. consumer Internet bandwidth usage share vastly exceeds its payment share of the cost.'"
Anyone who claims that their conclusions on an issue as controversial as this are "incontrovertible" raises a red flag in my eyes. And what I still don't get is what Cleland's suggesting we actually do. Instead of an extra USF charge should there be a Google line item that subtracts money from our bills? To be fair, shouldn't that then include all other bandwidth-hungry sites or apps? What guarantees do we have that these subsidies will result in lower costs and increased speeds and availability for consumers? And how does doing this not totally dissuade everyone from building the next generation of big bandwidth apps if they know there's going to be an extra tax for doing so?

But more than the faulty logic and unclear purpose of this report (other than a ham-handed attempt to paint Google as the bad guy), what do the broadband providers that support Cleland's work think they're getting out of this effort?

I mean, to most people if you looked up "telco shill" in the dictionary you'd see a picture of Cleland (not that you necessarily are, Scott, just that's who people perceive you to be), and when you search around for the responses to this report at least half of them are so disdainful as to be mocking (the comments on Cleland's own site are especially harsh), so it's hard to see how this messaging will rise to the top in a way that strengthens broadband providers' legitimate case that the business model for broadband is going through some growing pains and that they need regulatory flexibility to be able to navigate through and evolve with these changing times.

This is especially true since Google's proven feisty and has fought back against this highlighting how Cleland's numbers were self-admittedly largely based on guesstimates and pointing out his penchant for "payola punditry."

The worst part about this in my eyes is the timing. Wasn't it just a couple of weeks ago I was at a National Broadband Strategy Call to Action that was all about a new age of respect and collaboration in broadband policymaking?

So what good does it do to keep pushing an argument that most people either don't understand or side with Google on? An argument that appears to be a clear escalation of the over-arching war over net neutrality?

I'm not saying there aren't issues to be resolved in this arena, I'm just not sure any attempts to essentially brand Google as a bandwidth thief for doing the one thing everyone agrees we need more of (demand for broadband) help to move the debate forward in a positive, productive way.