Google, the search engine, does not own content it directs users to, with some exceptions. I do not trust Google everything, and I do not say they always adheres to their own "do no evil" mantra. But when it comes to limiting the powers of traditional content owners it does a decent job. Google is the net neutrality's best bet. I will explain why I think this is so.
Google plays the same role as the phone catalog, but in a much broader sense. It helps users find what they look for. If the dispatcher(s) of the Internet is agnostic to newcomers and established content providers this will help innovation, education and general informing the global community. At the same time this degree of centralization represented by the mighty Google, is vulnerable. Misused or controlled neutral dispatching is broken and value limited.
A neutral dispatcher is important in ensuring net neutrality. Except from paid search rankings, Google's page ranking algorithm favors paths to content users prefers. I guess we are lucky to have Google. Google is no saint, and is not defending net neutrality out of pure values and standards. But it is important to their business and current position. They depend on users looking for content in a chaotic ever growing amount of content. Google creates value from chaos. Chaos is to their advantage. Content providers and owners, the kind that is lobbying against net neutrality, want control and order. E.g. Apple, married to AT&T in the US, wants you to find what you look for inside iTunes, and is does a heck of a good job providing a streamlined user experience.
Google, a strong player that does not have specific interests in providing owned content (Youtube beeing an important exception, but it is a free service and content is user provided) and with no network preferences they effectively have become kind of net neutrality guarantor. Because of their unique position in the information industry, it is their interest that the net is neutral towards all content providers.
As a consequence Google has never been closely related to content producers and network providers. Content providers even accuse Google of copyright infringements, even traffic is directed their way via the search engine.
With Android Google have become related to device manufacturers. But one should note that none of these, or at least to a small degree, has, produces or provides content. They compete on producing devices suitable for content consumption and to some degree content production.
Apple and Sony are examples of the opposite type of device manufacturers, with Sony Ericsson in a limbo position providing Android handsets. Sony Ericsson's Android handsets are typically more customized than other Android handsets. Apple is closely related to content providers through iTunes and AT&T on the network side for exclusive deal on the iPhone.
Content owners will want to shortcut the neutral dispatcher to gain advantages over other content providers. Ultimately main players in the information industry want to control distribution, and even consumer devices. By controlling the networks used for distribution and devices, they can direct, and even filter content available. This is called walled gardens, and what traditional content providers want. I interpret what happens in OECD as a content provider control coup towards network services. Content providers utilize their powers over governments to gain some (initial?) control over network services.
The architecture of the Internet, as Licklider and the other founders designed it premiered distributed media control. The design was in direct opposite of how AT&T and telephone networks was designed, and AT&T still struggles with this.
But Google can not alone defend against the forces trying to divide and conquer the Internet. Even Google will have to change business strategy if net neutrality is lost. Google is wholly dependant on the prosumer (producing consumers) and others betting on the open and neutral web (which of course is in their own interest too).
The World Wide Web and http protocol is used for providing, finding and consuming content. An open WWW is mutual dependant on net neutrality. Net neutrality is an important foundation for WWW as we know it, and at the same time helps defending against centralized control. The reason for this is the hyperlinking nature of WWW.
So what can net neutrality defenders do? The decisions needed is often counterintuitive, since you often will have to choose chaos over order and not first class content providers that only accepts exclusive deals. Prosumers must put an effort in putting all kind of common knowledge on the web under a sharing license e.g. Creative Commons to prohibit evasive copyrighting of stuff of interest to everyone. Digital tool makers must strive to give prosumers tools to mass produce good quality content. Prosumers should link to relevant content, that help glue the Internet. Network service providers must not make exclusive deals with content providers or let them to close to their operations.
Content makers should also consider what will serve them best in the long run: a close marriage with media conglomerates that was formed during the 90's or a model with room for all players in the content industries. In contrast to the job
market 20 years ago, the options are no much more dynamic. Lock-in is not a good thing when tools are democratized to a level where everybody can produce something (talent or not). A large part of the content industries will benefit from net neutrality in the long run, but established entities will often fight against it.
Governments must regulate to by intervening using antitrust laws, but when one studies the history of media industries it is revealed that they are slow movers and too vulnerable to lobbying. The book The Masterswitch, by Tim Wu, describes the phenomena of media- and content industries since the inception of telephony and is an important contribution in the net neutrality debate.
