How Local Google PR Stunts Are Misguided

By Mike Schuster Mar 22, 2010 2:20 pm

Local politicians opt for renaming a town rather than taking providers to task.

In terms of average Internet download speeds, the United States currently stands 18th in the world. Lower than Sweden. Lower than Japan. Way lower than South Korea. As the chief forerunners for what the Internet was, is, and will be, we are woefully behind in delivering our citizens adequate connection to the Web.

Defying all expectations, however, the US government recognizes this access deficiency and has called to rectify it. The FCC's National Broadband Plan lays out the process to boost download speeds to 100 Mbs -- roughly 25 times the national average -- for 100 million households by 2020. Although the plan seems technologically feasible within the decade, it fails to include any assurance that insufficient competition between providers -- the main reason US cable bills dwarf those of other countries -- will ever increase. And it is that lack of customer choice which will drive subscription fees even further beyond sensible rates.

In an Op-Ed for the New York Times, Harvard professor Yochai Benkler detailed this glaring omission. He noted the plan's reference to the fact that a minuscule 15% of households will be given a choice in providers -- specifically between Verizon's (VZ) FiOS network and a local cable company like Comcast (CMCSA), Cablevision (CVC), or Time Warner (TWC). In other words, a whopping 85% of homes will be stuck with a single choice.

In France, Benkler wrote, increased competition has begotten HDTV, service twice as fast as Verizon or Comcast, and unlimited long distance for $33 per month. In the US, expect to pay three to five times as much.

So what have elected officials chosen to do about it? Refuse to kowtow to corporate lobbyists and champion would-be competitors like AT&T (T) and Qwest (Q)? Hardly. Instead, they're jumping out of planes, diving into shark tanks, and renaming their towns in the hopes that Google (GOOG) takes notice and selects their cities for its upcoming broadband initiative.

Google is planning to build a high-speed Internet network that would provide gargantuan speeds of one gigabit per second -- or 10 times the average proposed in the FCC bill -- to a lucky town or towns of 50,000 to 500,000 customers. And city officials across the country are hosting shameless America's Got Talent amateur events to promote Google's corporate image.

Essentially, the exact opposite of what they should be doing.

The New York Times listed a few of the wacky hijinks. Sarasota Mayor Richard Clapp swam with a school of sharks. Duluth Mayor Don Ness jumped into Lake Superior's icy waters and held a mock press conference announcing every newborn male Duluthian will be named Google Fiber. City employees in Palo Alto danced to the Village People dinosaur "YMCA" outside city hall, holding a banner that read "Palo Alto for Google Fiber." And for the month of March, Topeka will be officially renamed Google.

Bear in mind, these stunts aren't even guaranteed short-term fixes -- they're one-in-a-million half-court shots. How can consumers expect to pay affordable rates for 100 Mbs download speeds when state governments would rather bet on the Google horse and act like fools than risk alienating their corporate ties and provide an open market?

When the inevitable occurs and Google turns down the dozens of state-appointed puppets, officials will have to go back to waiting for the FCC bill to come into fruition. But of course, in the bid to improve conditions consumer-side, there are enough incentives to keep the advantage in the conglomerates' corner.