|
I think that the "public utility" designation exists for services that serve most people and cannot establish essential infrastructure without public support/approval. A power company needs a place to puts its lines, as does a phone company. The water company needs a place to lay its pipes. In order to establish a power grid, the government gives a company the right to set up power poles everywhere. This is a good thing because it would be pointless, wasteful, expensive, and inefficient to have competing networks of power grids, sewer systems, etc. In exchange for its service, the government grants a utility the power to access public land, airspace, etc. It is all right for government to demand that other companies be allowed to use present infrastructure b/c it should not be expected to make concessions for the building of parallel infrastructure that provides no net benefit.
Google is different. It does not need anything beyond what any other normal corporation needs. It does not receive special access from the government to conduct its business. The public did not grant Google access to its land, its air, or any other shared property. Also, unlike utilities, there would be plenty of benefit from the existence of many competing search engine systems. Google is successful because of its own innovation, not because of government-bestowed power. Any other company is free and encouraged to create its own search technology and apply it however it wants. Google is not a utility, and to regulate it as such is an abuse of the law.
|