Google Wants Its Own Fast Lane On The Web

wsj.com:

The celebrated openness of the Internet -- network providers are not supposed to give preferential treatment to any traffic -- is quietly losing powerful defenders.

Google Inc. has approached major cable and phone companies that carry Internet traffic with a proposal to create a fast lane for its own content, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Google has traditionally been one of the loudest advocates of equal network access for all content providers.

Read the whole story: wsj.com

Comments

[bdb4269]

I am a Network Administrator. I am an avid supporter of Net Neutrality (NN) -- AND being that I work in the IT field -- I actually understand on a technical level what NN is, and why it is crucially important. That said – I feel it needs to be said: What Google is doing (EdgeCaching) does NOT infringe on NN at all -- and does not indicate that they are "moving from their stance" or whatever some ignorant WSJ reporters said.

I feel it is very important that average people understand how oxymoronic this charge against google is. Because IMHO Google is one of, if not THE, largest most powerful outspoken supporter of NN.

I will explain in layman’s terms why EdgeCaching does not infringe NN. (for a super simple metaphor description, see my third post)

(To make is a bit easier to read I will use the following)
“EC” = “EdgeCache” (what google is doing)
“PB” = “Preferential Bandwidth” – the thing that NN actually stands against
ISP = “Internet Service Provider”
NN = “Net Neutrality”

[bdb4269]

TO SUM IT UP
The reason people who don't understand tech think that EC infringes NN, is because it involves a company, paying an ISP in an effort to get their sites to load faster and better. --- This sounds bad, and a lot like PB to the laymen – but there are important distinctions that differentiate it to an

THE 3 CRUCIAL PARTS NON-TECHIES DON'T UNDERSTAND IS.....

#1 NN is meant to protect against PB

#2 If you got PB from an ISP it makes your site faster AT THE COST of making other sites, slower and less reliable (and possibly not reachable if it got bad)

#3 If you got an ISP to let you EC in their data centers it makes your site faster BUT DOES NOT DETRIMENT OTHER SITES WHATSOEVER -- THE MORE AND MORE LARGE COMPANIES THAT EC -- THE MORE OPEN SPACE ON THE TRUNK LINES FOR THE LITTLE GUYS TO USE. BECAUSE THE BIG GUYS ARE ABLE TO STORE COMMONLY REQUESTED CONTENT LOCALLY -- THERE BY PREVENTING MILLIONS OF REQUESTS, EVER HAVING TO HIT A TRUNK LINE.

So essentially -- EC is the way of the NN future IMHO -- It allows big sites to pay extra to make their sites faster, and instead of hurting the little guy like PB would -- EC actually helps, by reducing the amount of data on the trunks, so there is MORE ROOM for the little guys.

[bdb4269]

To make it even simpler, consider this metaphor.

Everyone in an office competes from the 1 printer in the whole building.

What NN stands against – would be if big guy workers who can afford to pay the building owners – where allowed to “jump in line” and get to use the printer without waiting in line. This would be unfair, and could easily get so bad, that the “little guy” never even gets to print.

What Google is doing – in this metaphor means – would be big guy workers who can afford to pay the building owners do NOT get the right to “jump in line” – they would instead get a copy machine installed at their desk. So if someone comes to big man workers desk and wants TPS Report 123 – instead of big man worker having wait in line for the printer – he could just make a copy of his copy of the report for the person, right there at his desk.

This helps big guy worker, because he can almost instantly deliver the TPS report AND in helps the little guy worker, because the big guy workers are not spending so much time at the printer – so the printer is in reality MORE FREE for the little guy to use.

[DinkSinger]

The WSJ report says "Yahoo now has a digital subscriber-line partnership with AT&T. Some have speculated that the deal has caused Yahoo to go silent on the network-neutrality issue." As a subscriber to this service I know that:
1) The cross-branding partnership goes back to 2003, when AT&T was called SBC.
2) AT&T ended the partnership last April.
They couldn't be more wrong is they tried.

[DinkSinger]

Two corrections, I should have checked my sources better. This original partnership goes back to 2001, not 2003, and the partnership did not end last April , it was extended in a reduced form.

[fsamuels]

Don't believe everything you read in the WSJ (at least not this). Both Google and Lawrence Lessig say the article is way off.

http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/12/net-neutrality-and-benefits-of-caching.html
http://lessig.org/blog/2008/12/the_madeup_dramas_of_the_wall.html

[macweenie]

Aren't we getting into "too big to fail" territory again? I agree with the first poster, Nationalize the Internet to save it from private malfeasance and meddling.

[Helzapoppin]

Since the US is on such a big nationalization kick I think it's high time the internet infrastructure was nationalized and kept out of the hands of private content providers. Give cable and phone companies equal access to all systems for content delivery and let real competition drive the industry for a change.

[psnyder]

Excellent article highlighting very disturbing, anti-democratic developments against network neutrality. Many of those who were allies in the good fight for network neutrality have jumped ship and been persuaded that deals between big players (like Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and others) and big connectivity providers, like Spies-R-Us, er, AT&T, are a good thing and just what we need. No harm done. It only makes sense.

Right. The new feudalism marches on apace under the banner, "Screw the people." Until it is proven otherwise I shall continue to hope that President Obama is not marching at the head of that parade.

[danielmcvicar]

sounds like Google is doing evil

[libmac]

What happened to the old Google motto: "Don't be evil"?

[OCaptainMercaptan]

boooo!