I am reading his article about how we need 'search neutrality', and I can't help but think this notions is utterly stupid.
Let me explain... Adam tries to tie net neutrality w/ a concept called search neutrality. But there is a huge flaw in this analogy. The flaw is simple... end-user decision versus end-user being forced to use a service.
The pipes are controlled by a few companies. By allowing companies to pay for priority will effectively give the current big boys in the space continued control because they will always be able to out-bid the smaller compeditor. And when there is an external artificial factor allowing a big boy to maintain control, the end user no longer decides on what service he/she uses. History has taught us innovation will suffer. (Case in point, Microsoft's operating system.)
Net Neutrality is important because there are limited number of pipes to use regarding the Internet. A situation can take place where 'the few' can pose a serious barrier of entry to a new player, creating severe limitations on Internet innovation. This simply can not be allowed for innovation sake.
Search Neutrality is a none starter. The reason: With Net Neutrality, anyone can create a search engine. If its better than the rest, it will win. There is NO artificial use of Google. NO ONE is FORCED to USE Google. If I am unhappy with their search results, I will use Ask or Yahoo or Mamma.com or any other engine.
For all the services Google has sparked innovation (ie Cloud computing, mobile OS, online video... etc) does not mean people will use them for search. Google simply hopes people will use Google search, and Google's other services.
71% of 'end users' DECIDED to use Google. This effectively makes the notion of 'Search Neutrality' utterly ridiculous.