Google Changes Tune On Net Neutrality, Proposes Fast Lane For Its Content

Silicon Alley Insider:

One of the most kneejerk Internet causes in recent years has been "net neutrality"--the absurd conviction that phone and cable companies who paid hundreds of billions of dollars to lay the cable that Internet data travels over shouldn't be able to charge different rates for different tiers of data service.

From the beginning, big Internet content companies like Google have fiercely championed this.

Now, however, Google appears to be realizing that net non-neutrality would actually be a boon to business--because it can afford to pay preferential fees that other companies can't. Microsoft, Yahoo, and others appear to be realizing the same thing.

Read the whole story: Silicon Alley Insider

Comments

[donttasemebro]

11:18 AM on 12/16/2008

Bye, bye, Internet. It was nice while it lasted.

[imsosure]

12:25 AM on 12/16/2008

Go Google, I'm so tired of the implication that these things like the WSJ are beyond reproach, let em burn.

[Mac18]

11:19 PM on 12/15/2008

Google vs. Wall Street Journal
new vs. old
in vs. out
hip vs. slowly getting outdated
wealth of information vs. some information
....I mean I really could go on....the symbolism of this speaks volumes....

[sleepdawg]

08:05 PM on 12/15/2008

Author's posting is a grotesque and reactionary portrayal of the advocacy for creating a neutral net.

First, understand that creating tiers of paid service is not a part of maintaining a neutral network.
Preventing monopolies and putative systems to prevent access based on income level, or even geography, is. Using subsidies in the form of tax credits to build out infrastructure which you then use to abut peering agreements is a violation of that cause.

It's a difficult topic, and clearly the WSJ didn't get it. Mom and pop probably won't either. Anymore than they care to dig into subsidies for milk or steel across trade agreements.

[Christian]

05:34 PM on 12/15/2008

I am paying 60 bucks a month now, this will only let them demand more from my pocket and it treats the little guys unfairly. Isn't time we see equal treatment for all? We've seen what we get with bankers have a elevated position in business. If it gives someone a advantage because they are rich, company or individual, I am against it! Google pushes this and I'll change search engines, it's all us little guys can do.

[satyriasis]

04:58 PM on 12/15/2008

Typical hit piece by the WSJ. The WSJ is a trade paper for hedge fund managers. They're also owned by that revolting Murdoch. They have no credibility.

Regardless, Obama has made it clear that he supports net neutrality. This was a major reason I voted for him. The fight to protect equality on the net is gonna be a long one folks. We must remain vigilant.

[we-r-doomed]

04:39 PM on 12/15/2008

Guys head looks like a snail

[rf-hawaii]

02:48 PM on 12/15/2008

Google is becoming the enemy. Perhaps we should register our displeasure with their change of philosophy.

[jdj81]

05:21 PM on 12/15/2008

Google has made some annoying decisions in the last few years, but this is not one of 'em. "Edge caching" (which is Google's technical goal here) is totally different from subverting net neutrality. Other big-iron services (like Akamai) already do the same.

[rollingdivision]

07:00 PM on 12/15/2008

Google is neither friend or foe they are nothing more than peddlers seeking to monopolize the marketplace., caveat emptor!

[Larry6363]

02:29 PM on 12/15/2008

The Internet has to have "net neutrality" to work properly. If any company with deep pockets can hog up bandwidth; then all the little companies with web sites or services will see their data services degrade.

As it is, companies like Comcast, Adelphia, AT&T, are moving towards restricting the amount you can download, even with “unlimited” service.

What we need is better infrastructure, with more bandwidth speed available to everyone.

If there was plenty of speed available, and plenty of bandwidth, and no slowdowns or hiccups; Google wouldn’t be so willing to spend any money on having different tiers of data service available.

The next-generation Internet backbone is “Internet2”; that has been working for the last several years.
You can read all about it here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2120440/
“Internet2 moves data 100 to 1,000 times faster than the old-fashioned Internet.”

Without "net neutrality"; there would be no incentive to improve the Internet, just to get revenue from the existing small pipe we have now. Our service will only get worse as the Internet gets more popular.

[bubbuh]

02:26 PM on 12/15/2008

What WSJ didn't include.
http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/12/google-blasts-w.html

[bubbuh]

02:23 PM on 12/15/2008

Let's see. The WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch who also owns Fox News. Is it possible that this story is distorted as well as full of errors and omissions? Is it possible it includes the occasion falsehood as well?

In a phrase, you betcha!!!


Google's long term business strategies are intimately entwined with net neutrality. It's technical and, as it turns out, marketing expertise gives it an incredible advantage as long as the net treats everyone equally. Unlike a certain other computing company and a certain political party, Google doesn't need to stack the deck to be a winner.

[gfunk30]

02:09 PM on 12/15/2008

Google is not to be trusted. The founders (Brin/Page) aren't even involved in any of the major decisions anymore. This company has been building dossiers on peoples browsing habits for years, and selling them to the private/public sector for marketing/profile building purposes. They have no regard for a persons privacy, or anything else other that increasing their market share/profitability. Their company motto for years has been "Don't be evil." Well, this is a paradox.

[MrBwood]

01:33 AM on 12/16/2008

So how is Google invading your privacy?

[darthdarcy]

01:46 PM on 12/15/2008

They are gonna destroy the internet as we've known it...

Watch and see...

It's in the works, "I see plans, within plans..!"

[norkas]

06:21 PM on 12/15/2008

If GOOGLE over steps the consumers they will loose there market share so fast that wall street will have a hear attack.

Users are evrything to a business like GOOGLE and on a moments notice someone will be prepared to take some of there market share because of greed and lies if that is the case.

I do not like being tracked like a animal and Goggle has to be very careful of how far they take this without giving anyone any say so. There is a thin line here where many users will leave Google if they feel threated an any way or intruded on beyond there reason

[dizmo4]

01:45 PM on 12/15/2008

The entire structure of Telecommunications in this country is woefully outdated and I hope that the infrastructure investment program that Obama is proposing will address this.

Most cable/teleco companies have to lay their own fiber optic / cable lines. THey don't share service amongst existing lines so there are numerous local monopolies. If you're in a state that is dominated by a single cable company or telecom company you're at the mercy of their corporate whims. Because they aren't a national monopoly, no one really cares. The solution to this ( and the entire net neutrality ) debate is quite simply which is to decouple the telecoms from the physical fiber optic lines. The physical lines would be owned by the public and the telecoms would lease them ( this is the way it works with phone lines). But because the laws are so out of date and Congress seems to do virtually nothing, we the consumer suffer. Telecom A can spends billions to lay fiber optic lines but Telecom B which provides the actual service can't use them. So the consumer gets the short end of the stick.

you fix that problem of ownership of the physical lines and the net neutrality debate becomes moot.

[jdj81]

08:10 PM on 12/15/2008

Exactly.

I believe this is how they do it in Japan. Over there it's possible to get FTTH connections up to 100Mbit for as little as $30/month. There's tons of competition with dozens of ISPs duking it out in each region. Now they're talking about upgrades that would boost everyone to 1000Mbit.

The best most can hope for Stateside is a 6-12Mbit cable connection from Comcast for $45/month at best. Go America.

[sposton]

01:12 PM on 12/15/2008

If we allowed telcos what they wanted we would have never developed the Internet as it exists today. It is not just there to make as much money for those who own fiber. It is a national infrastructure just like our roads are. We cannot allow the maximization of profit for the same reason you would not allow maximization of profits of our road system. They are making money and they should be happy with that. If we allow this you will have parts being milked to the detriment of the whole. And if anything, the value of the Internet is in its totality of the the network effect. We are going in the wrong direction of what existed prior to emergence if Internet, a number private networks like CompuServe, Prodigy or AOL.

We already pay for different services. There are different rates of broadband, dial-up, etc. Folks, what is wrong with everything around us? Greed gone amok! Why would we allow more greed in the Internet and expect any better results? We do best when we regulate our economy and resources for the benefit of the public and not for the benefit of the corporations.