• “We believe that the new [Clearwire] network will provide wireless consumers with real choices for the software applications, content and handsets that they desire. Such freedom will mirror the openness principles underlying the Internet….” - Google public policy blog on its $500 million Clearwire WiMax investment, May 7, 2008
• “Exclusive web and local search provider” - Google’s investor relations statement [pdf] on what it’s getting for its $500 million (Slide #9)

There’s a pretty big temptation to crow about Google’s hypocrisy. But as Don Corleone said in The Godfather, “That would be wrong.”

Is Google backtracking on its support for net neutrality? Sure. But that was inevitable and few took the company’s Messianic pronouncements in favor of Net neutrality seriously anyway.

The real issue is that the Sprint-Google-Intel Clearwire announcement shows once again that broadband deployment is frighteningly expensive, whether wired or wireless. Even with all the benefits of modern technology, there is simply no easy way to bring high-speed service nationwide – especially to rural and underserved Americans.

Will WiMax be a nationwide silver bullet? Probably not. Will it be a plausible option for some consumers? More likely.

But that’s why the federal government is right to retain the traditional evenhanded approach to the Internet that it’s had since the 1990s and not try to regulate new technologies, especially if the financing for these systems holds the promise of lower-cost options for consumers.

As the Chinese adage goes, Let a hundred flowers bloom. Consumers will then chose the winners and this whole neutrality issue will crumble from its own irrelevance.

Interesting financial news from Akamai, which helps companies deliver online entertainment by routing data over less-congested routes over the Web. The company just reported a quarterly profit of 20 cents per share, compared with 11 cents for the same quarter last year. Overall revenue was $187.0 million, a 34 percent increase over Q1 2007 revenue.

Two points about this and Net neutrality:

First, the success of Akamai, Limelight and other online delivery companies is pretty clear evidence that the need for efficient networks goes far beyond the entertainment industry. Take a look at Akamai’s customer list and you’ll see 800-FLOWERS, Harley-Davidson, Lands End, and L’Oreal. You’ll also see nine of the top 10 global automakers. Not exactly a Hollywood contingent.

Second, this trend toward more efficient data routing should also quash the simplistic idea that consumers’ best interests are served when all online data is equal. There’s a reason why Akamai’s clients paid nearly $200 million in Q1. They understand the need for fast communication links regardless of whether the end users are individuals streaming movies or employees on a videoconference.

For consumers, this news is a timely reminder on two fronts: First, network management is vital to maintaining a good experience on the increasingly crowded Net. Second, customers who pay extra for dedicated service – whether to a broadband carrier or an outside firm – are helping to make the Net more efficient and therefore more affordable for everyone.

Today’s Los Angeles Times has an article on how net neutrality proposals are causing deep concern among songwriters and other entertainers. The fear is that today’s Congressional proposals will undercut the “smart network” technologies necessary to reduce illegal online activity, including copyright infringement, that have devastated the music community in recent years.

Draw your own conclusions but for our part, the evidence to back up the concern about illegal activity is overwhelming.

And since we’re on the subject, here’s a recent reminder of Net neutrality’s real stakes from Rick Carnes at the Songwriters Guild of America:

“The massive amount of copyright piracy taking place on the Internet is killing the songwriting profession. If a content neutral technological fix can be instituted to help curtail this horrendous situation, we are all for it. Without the adequate means and the will to protect copyrighted works on the Internet, the incentive to create will be completely destroyed. And our culture – and the marketplace of ideas that the Constitution seeks to foster – will be eviscerated along with it.”

For Carnes’ excellent testimony to Congress last March, click here.

Today, the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee held a full committee hearing on “The Future of the Internet.” In response, the Hands Off the Internet coalition issued the following statement:

“Chairman Martin’s testimony restored a healthy dose of reality to the debate over network management on the Internet. Today’s new ‘smart network’ technology is one of the best ways to improve Net users’ online experience, including faster and more affordable access while reducing online dangers.

“No question, consumers deserve safeguards to access legal websites and other information. But it’s often overlooked that they already have this protection and as the Chairman’s testimony shows, markets, public opinion, and FCC oversight are working to protect the consumer without the unintended consequences of a massive new regulatory scheme.”

The Hands Off the Internet coalition is a Washington, DC-based coalition of companies and nonprofit organizations that believes the Internet has flourished because government has not tried to regulate it. Members include Alcatel-Lucent, AT&T, Qwest, 3M, the National Association of Manufacturers, FiberControl, and Cinergy Communications. Nonprofit members include Citizens Against Government Waste and the National Black Chamber of Commerce.

BusinessWeek’s tech guru Steve Wildstrom writes a telling post on net neutrality.

Today, the Federal Communications Commission held a public hearing at Stanford University on the Internet and network management. In response, the Hands Off the Internet coalition (HandsOff.org) released the following statement:

“Network management is indispensable to make the Internet safer and more enjoyable and that point seemed to resonate with the Commissioners. The Commissioners also seemed receptive to evidence that smart networks are crucial to the continued deployment of affordable broadband.

“Hopefully, today’s hearing helped better focus the policy debate on a more realistic appreciation of the expense and complexity necessary for today’s Internet.”

The Hands Off the Internet coalition is a Washington, DC-based coalition of companies and nonprofit organizations that believes the Internet has flourished because government has not tried to regulate it. Members include Alcatel-Lucent, AT&T, Qwest, 3M, the National Association of Manufacturers, FiberControl, and Cinergy Communications. Nonprofit members include Citizens Against Government Waste and the National Black Chamber of Commerce.

In a little covered court decision last week, Judge James Zagel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois sided with Comcast in a case brought by e360Insight, saying the cable company acted in good faith in trying to block what it deemed was spam from reaching subscribers.

We’re struck by the similarities between the arguments made by the plaintiff (characterized as a “spammer” in the judges ruling) and the folks over at Save the Internet. What with all those nasty words like, “manage,” “block,” and “filter” you’d think Save the Internet would be laying siege to the courthouse…but alas, all is quiet.

This episode has us here at Hands Off wondering, since Save the Internet believes all bits are equal, when will they launch their campaign to defend the “rights” of spammers?