WSJ Gets It Wrong: Net Neutrality Still in the Front Seat

We are now on the cusp of making history for an open Internet. But don't tell that to the Wall Street Journal, which today published an article that portrayed the movement for Net Neutrality as losing steam.

Say what?

In addition to the millions of Americans who have taken a stand in support of Net Neutrality, we have an incoming president who has pledged to "take a back seat to no one" in his commitment to Net Neutrality.

Morevover, several new members of Congress pledged their allegiance to Net Neutrality while getting elected. They all agree that the Internet should remain free and open to all users -- that we should be able to visit any Web content without network operators or others blocking, impairing or degrading our connection.

Journal Story: Much Ado About Nothing

Obama: 'Backseat to no one'

It's no surprise then, as we are about to win one for the open Internet, that powerful forces are aligning to stop this fundamental change from happening. The Wall Street Journal story paints support for Net Neutrality as ebbing, confusing a Google plan to utilize "edge caching" technology as a fundamental violation of Net Neutrality by one of its biggest corporate supporters.

According to Google, the "secret" program referred to by the Journal is nothing more than a content caching technology that has been going on for years. There is no prioritization, they write, nor is there an ISP choosing fast lanes and slow lanes. Hundreds of companies do this to move content geographically closer to end-users.

Google has been a moving target for phone and cable industry lobbyists and their breathless shills. "The Wall Street Journal is playing vessel for the latest attack," writes Karl Bode of Broadband Reports.

"It's a nice win for whichever cable company leaked the news as it paints Google as a hypocrite ahead of next year's renewed fight over network neutrality legislation," Bode continues. "However, the Wall Street Journal is intentionally distorting Google's proposal for political effect."

(David Isenberg goes one step further, saying the Journal story set off his special detector.)

The Public Mandate

If Google or any other tech company were secretly violating Net Neutrality, there would be an absolute and cataclysmic backlash from the grassroots and netroots who have made Net Neutrality a signature issue in 21st Century politics. The Internet community would come crashing down on their heads like Minutemen on Benedict Arnold.

Those covering this issue love to portray Net Neutrality as clash of corporate titans. But it's not up to AT&T, Comcast -- or Google -- whether we have Net Neutrality. It's up to the public, and we're not giving up the fight for a free and open Internet.

The Journal story also implies that President-elect Barack Obama has softened his support for Net Neutrality. Where's the evidence of that? Oddly, the journal doesn't actually ask Obama or his transition team to comment.

Obama in the Driver's Seat

We do know this though. The president-elect has made numerous public statements on the campaign trail and published a detailed policy document placing Net Neutrality as his top priority. He's explicitly opposed paid "quality of service" arrangements and was also a co-sponsor of the Dorgan-Snowe bill that is the strongest Net Neutrality legislation ever proposed.

Contrary to claims of the Journal that Net Neutrality forces are receding, we are actually closer now than ever before to victory. We have arrived at the moment when Net Neutrality has its greatest appeal, clearest need, and best chance of becoming law.

Our opponents will try to divide and distract us. But now is not the time to retreat but to move forward.

Follow Timothy Karr on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TimKarr

Comments

[dkm]

Not too many years ago the WSJ was a decent newspaper as long as you avoided the editorials. Their news people were more than competent and on frequent occasions the article in the middle column of the front page was of a progressive flavor. In other words, the news and the editorial board were separate and distinct. From what I've seen, that is no longer true. Since Murdoch bought it, not only have news reporters been jumping ship, but, as with all his other acquisitions, the editorial board has taken over everything including the advertisements. That is sad, but eventually the WSJ will go the way of everything that sells its soul.

[LMPE]

Just remember, this is the print version of Fox Noise that we're talking about.

[research]

The WSJ is a MURDOCH Rag!

check out the Inquirer for a better quality of information.

[frappe]

Can we finally put an end to this war against Net Neutrality which is being waged by those who apparently fear the unmitigated, unfiltered expression of a free people? Let's find a way to drive a final and decisive nail in the coffin of those who would prefer to limit "free speech". (And, yes, a vote against Net Neutrality is, in my opinion, a vote against free speech.)

Given the blatant imbalances and corporate bias of our current MSM, it is absolutely essential that Net Neutrality become a treasured and protected institution that's not to be tampered with.

[cadsuch]

The internet is the definition of net neutrality. As long as there IS an internet. But you have to understand, the reality of the situation. The Feudal lords HAVE to outlaw the internet. The feudal lords power comes from an ignorant population. And the population is no longer ignorant as long as their IS an internet.

So.........bend over and put your head between your legs and kiss your.......internet goodby.

[RevSpaminator]

Amazing how the WSJ is now in the fact distortion business, now that it is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

[SillyGit]

I'm glad that it wasn't just me that noticed that.

Rupert has to dislike the internet since it allows people to discover that his 'news' companies are actually propaganda, disinformation, and misinformation companies.

The Media Cartel dislikes the internet because it allows almost everyone to be a content provider as thus they no longer have absolute control over what we can see and hear. It allows Radiohead to sell their music to their fans without the cartel getting a penny (UK or US). The Media Cartel would like the internet converted into a broadcast system where only Media Cartel members may be content providers. Corporatists want this too since they can regain absolute control over information flow.

[cyrano1]

I hope the lack of response thus far on this post doesn't indicate that the Wall Street Journal is right. Too many people still aren't aware of the issue and the stakes are too high.

[NickHP]

Amen, Mr Karr.

Net neutrality is violated by the ISP selecting the content or the destination that a subscriber to your ISP can see. Caching reduces the network overhead with moving lots of data repeatedly over the network. It is used everywhere right now. Think of a popular YouTube video, or a prime front page headline from Drudge or Huffington Post.

If the ISP were making Wall Street Journal twice as fast as Huffington Post then they would be steering the traffic in an unfair way, violating the idea of network neutrality.

The most I would say here, is that Google is setting up their own caching service. But they do that anyway with distributed data centers. And there are private services that offer network caching to anyone willing to pay for it - right now.

[dfranz]

It's the tubes man!!! The Tubes!

[slarabee]

I am by profession a Network Engineer and I would have to agree with Google on this. Caching engines are used by all the large ISP's (i.e AOL, AT&T, Comcast, Verizon etc...) and has been in use for at least a decade. I have not examined the technology behind Google's "Edge Caching" but I will for the sake of arguement assume it is similar in both technology and intent.
I worked for a small DSL provider in 2000 and even as small as we were we had a caching engine.
In the early day's of caching there were some problems with updates in that AOL for example would show outdated versions of pages sometimes or not at all because of DNS addressing issues.
However, these days Caching Engines update quickly and DNS updates happen much faster than they used too so these problems are almost non-existent.
The purpose of caching is to speed up content delivery which is not a violation of net neutrality in any way that I understand it.

[thecanadian]

WSJ probably doesn't know what "net neutrality" is! Good post Timothy and Thank You!

[larry278]

Somebody is walking by a cemetary at midnight & is whistling.