Network Neutrality Defenders Quietly Backing Off? 171
SteveOHT writes "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. The story claims that Microsoft, Yahoo, and Amazon have quietly withdrawn from a coalition of companies and groups backing network neutrality (the coalition is not named), though Amazon's name is reportedly once again listed on the coalition's Web site. Google has already responded, calling the WSJ story "confused" and explaining that they're only talking about edge caching, and remain as committed as ever to network neutrality. The blogosphere is alight with the debate.
Re:So Google pays money to the ISPs... (Score:5, Informative)
No!
You get "fast-priority" because Google put a server closer to you.
This is similar to what Akamai does.
So it's not unfair around the internet, only that google gets faster because it's closer
Re:Don't bother reading WSJ for tech (Score:4, Informative)
Google's proposed arrangement with network providers, internally called OpenEdge, would place Google servers directly within the network of the service providers, according to documents reviewed by the Journal. The setup would accelerate Google's service for users.
...
The matter could come to a head quickly. In approving AT&T's 2006 acquisition of Bell South, the FCC made AT&T agree to shelve plans for a fast lane for 30 months.
Conflict of interest central (Score:5, Informative)
The WSJ is now owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns ISPs in Europe. For him net neutrality is a threat to a potential revenue stream. All we're seeing here is the 'editorial independence' of the Murdoch press.
Re:Don't bother reading WSJ for tech (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not sure what bizarro-slashdot you visit, but the one I read generally does not have readers that are aware of what is going on. First, because two or three people tag an article correctly (that's all it took last time I did some testing with the tags) does not mean that even a simple majority of the users/readers understand the story. Second, one need only read through the comments at a low threshold on just about any mildly-confusing story to see that this is the case. Thankfully, we do have a moderation system that generally works pretty well to help filter out the nonsense. And finally, this article is one of those rare instances where an editor here actually did add something to help clarify the issue.
Re:Don't bother reading WSJ for tech (Score:3, Informative)
They also said that Google have changed their stance. If you look at this Google Public Policy Blog post [blogspot.com] from last summer:
Beyond that, we also believe that broadband carriers should have the flexibility to engage in a whole host of activities, including....Employing certain upgrades, such as the use of local caching or private network backbone links
Re:So Google pays money to the ISPs... (Score:3, Informative)
Well, this is why network neutrality is so hard to get right. Of course it's not much different from what Akamai does. Of course anybody could do it. But of course it's going to shut out the majority of sites in favor of those which can afford to get in bed with all the last mile ISPs. If Google and all the other big ones go right to the ISPs, why would any ISP work on upgrading their internet connections? Most users will think that other sites are just slow, when in reality the slowness is caused by a drastically underdeveloped connection from the users' ISP to other networks. In order to compete, you would then have to pay for the fast delivery of the data right to every ISP's doorstep: That's effectively the same as "we throttle you unless you pay up", i.e. not network neutral.
Re:So Google pays money to the ISPs... (Score:5, Informative)
Which has NOTHING to do with "Net Neutrality", even though the anti-neutrality people don't QUITE seem to get that it doesn't prove their point or that anyone's turning their back on things.
Net neutrality is about applying the same consistent rules for all content and not munging for "quality of service" reasons the stuff. If Google's stuff gets there to you more robustly and quicker, it's because it's spending quite a bit of money putting HARDWARE they maintain closer to you and more of it.
The stuff the net neutrality people are harping on about is where the crap the ISP's are shovelling gets priority unless you pay them protection money.
Re:So Google pays money to the ISPs... (Score:3, Informative)
Instead, each ISP hosted a server on their own network for this content. The BBC just sent one copy to each ISP and their customers then fetched it from their local copy. The same thing can be done to a degree by setting the correct cache flags, assuming your ISP provides an HTTP proxy. It only really makes sense for very large sites where a significant proportion of the ISP's customers are going to want to access and get a lot of static data. It's not applicable in the general case.
Lawrence Lessig's response (Score:5, Informative)
Missing from the article, however, is the evidence that my view is a "shift" or "soften[ing]" of earlier views. That's because there isn't any such evidence. My view is the view I have always had -- whether or not it is the view of others in this debate.
Edge Caching (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Edge Caching (Score:2, Informative)