Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Businesses Communications Google Government Politics

Network Neutrality Defenders Quietly Backing Off? 171

Posted by timothy
from the but-you-said-earlier dept.
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 The story claims that Microsoft, Yahoo, and Amazon have quietly withdrawn from a coalition of companies and groups backing network neutrality (the coalition is not named), though Amazon's name is reportedly once again listed on the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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Network Neutrality Defenders Quietly Backing Off?

Comments Filter:
  • No worries. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by satansmurf (934000) on Monday December 15, 2008 @08:15AM (#26118693)
    "Evil," says Google CEO Eric Schmidt, "is what Sergey says is evil." We are all fine.
    • Re:No worries. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Arthur Grumbine (1086397) on Monday December 15, 2008 @02:50PM (#26122597) Journal
      That quote references Sergey's role as "the moral compass" [wired.com] for the company. It strikes me that it is way better to have a single individual acting in this role than a committee, or than letting morality be determined by the currents of popular opinion, and here is why I think that:

      If it is granted that no morality will be accepted universally as good, but rather individuals will judge the good and evil of someone else's morality according to their own, then it seems reasonable that we don't expect Google to never be considered evil by anyone. Rather, what seems most important about about a corporation trying to have a morality that is independent of (and governs over) their inherent purely capitalistic (not a bad thing) motives/actions, is that their morality remain consistent.

      Consistency, and the reasonable expectations it produces, seems to be at the core of developing any relationship that requires trust. For example, I (like most people) avoid making friends with people who believe that it is a good thing to steal things of great value from their friends, but I also avoid making friends with people who flip-flop on their "stealing valuables" stance. That's pretty basic, right? What's relevant here, though, is that I would much rather that my friends/acquaintances/etc be consistent about their beliefs, than being a flip-flopper, that way if I can adjust my own expectations and actions accordingly (i.e. lock up the valuables when they're coming over).

      Well, when it comes to businesses, by default I expect them to always be trying to do whatever they can to make the most money. And I have no problem with this - I love the free-market. But, I have an additional attraction to companies that try to restrict their capitalistic tendencies for the sake of the betterment of society and the individuals that compose it, especially the more I agree with their definition of betterment, or "good". However, it seems that one of the better ways for a company to be consistent in its morality would be for that morality to be defined by one person. Although a single person can develop contrary/inconsistent positions within their own morality no matter how hard they're trying to be consistent, this likelihood of inconsistency generally increases all the more, the more individuals you add to the mix.

      It would be absurd of me to expect Google's morality to be identical with mine. There will be plenty of things we disagree about. As long as they're consistent, though, I'll at least feel confident in supporting them when I agree with them, and not, when I don't.
      • by NateTech (50881)

        Unless the power makes that person bat-shit crazy. That's the usual way of things with one guy with too much power.

        If he doesn't succumb to it, congratulations. They already bought DoubleClick...

        The need to make a profit and not just blow through cash, can make one bat-shit crazy, of course.

  • Need I say more? They're grabbing headlines once again for confused reporting.
    • by Yvanhoe (564877) on Monday December 15, 2008 @08:39AM (#26118813) Journal
      I'm glad that Slashdot restores the truth with accurate headlines
      • by ipX (197591) on Monday December 15, 2008 @09:13AM (#26118995)
        Indeed, the WSJ confused more than the title; they confused caching with prioritization. FTFA:

        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.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by the_womble (580291)

          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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by wild_quinine (998562)
        "I'm glad that Slashdot restores the truth with accurate headlines"

        I don't know why such bullshit gets through the slashdot filters, frankly. If you look at the tags on any given article it's clear that most of the slashdot community knows exactly what is going on, even despite attempts to get us up in arms over another misleading headline, or half-baked no-facts 'story'.

        Why not just start serving your audience, instead of begging for hits with false, misleading, overblown or just plain stupid headlines

        • by h4rm0ny (722443) on Monday December 15, 2008 @09:50AM (#26119245) Journal

          I've had a suspicion for a while now that the number of comments a story gets ties into Slashdot's revenue stream somehow. Not quite sure what the specifics might be - maybe ad revenue based on page hits or something, but the unsubtle and often pathetically trollish comments the editors ad to some stories are obviously an attempt to stir up lots of argument and comments. If it's not based on revenue, then it's either boredom or social experiment, but it definitely is deliberate.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Xest (935314)

            I don't think it is deliberate, I think it's simply that the Slashdot editors are primarily the types of people who believe anything you tell them, so when you go and whisper into their ear "Hey, I heard everyone is backing off from supportung net neutrality", they jump up, run to their PC, find a relevant article submission or make their own and hit submit.

            It strikes me more as really careless and gullable editing than something done with malice or intention. I think you're giving the editors too much cred

          • by Darundal (891860)
            Yes, I think it is tied into Slashdot's revenue stream too. Slashdot is about the discussion, and the point of those unsubtle and pathetically trollish comments the editors add to some stories is that people take a look and discuss. More discussion equals more ad revenue and subscriptions for them because more people come to the site and value it. So, lets all raise a drinks to Slashdot, a place on the net where employees can be/possibly specifically are paid to troll!
          • it definitely is deliberate.

            They could just be incompetent.

        • by gEvil (beta) (945888) on Monday December 15, 2008 @09:54AM (#26119287)
          I don't know why such bullshit gets through the slashdot filters, frankly. If you look at the tags on any given article it's clear that most of the slashdot community knows exactly what is going on, even despite attempts to get us up in arms over another misleading headline, or half-baked no-facts 'story'.

          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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by openfrog (897716)

        I'm glad that Slashdot restores the truth with accurate headlines

        I'm glad that this is rated funny, but considering the damage that this disinformation, deliberate or not, can cause to the principle of net neutrality, I suggest that we discuss here on Slashdot the ways to make the Wall Street Journal accountable for this dirty info bomb. Let's leverage Slashdot and the Net to turn the table and question the origin of this story. I know: "never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence". Well, if it is only incompetence, let's expose the idiot who wrote th

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Yvanhoe (564877)
          Well, as a (presumably) computer-savvy person, continue to say to any reader of the WSJ that you know that they are not doing their journalistic job correctly. Tell them how confusing caching and prioritization is akin to confusing a company in a bankruptcy state with a company making negative profits and that they should have another information source for technology. It could even make them question the journalists' work in economic matters.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Hognoxious (631665)

        You can always rely on slashdot to get the headlines right. You just have to wait until they've tried everything else.

        - Winston Churchill.

    • by Kijori (897770)

      Nor blogs.

      I'm currently studying a variety of blogs as part of a research project - examining their content, presentation and language use.

      My main conclusion so far has been that they're God-awful.

      • by AndersOSU (873247)

        Ok, I have a question for you. I assume you're looking at a number of metrics, accuracy, timeliness, grammar, etc. I think most of us would agree that accuracy is the most important, but it is also the hardest to identify if taken in isolation. So my question is, can a reasonably well informed person identify an inaccurate blog post based on other cues, such as grammar and language use?

        The reason I ask is I get a reasonable portion of my news from blogs - and I think I'm pretty good at telling which ones

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by ipX (197591)

          Here's a theory for giggles:

          The quality and relevance of content on any given blog is proportional to its distance from the source of the original information and the author's mastery of the subject. Proper grammar and spelling are taken as a prerequisite to any high quality communication.

          Good: Blogging from inside companies about company politics, activities and product development. Blogging from inside or about any source of information from an initial source that has competence and a threshold lev

          • by AndersOSU (873247)

            Here's what I'll say, reporting on press releases is always sloppy, but sometimes unavoidable. Reporting from inside the company is quality neutral: blogging from inside with a grudge is generally bad (exception for whistle blowing), blogging from inside without a grudge, i.e. objectively is good (exception for PR sanitized blogging - which is worse than reporting on press releases AND might be difficult to detect). Real investigative journalism is better than an inside man blogging.

            If you don't use decen

      • And thus the reason I avoid just about anything with the word "blog" in it. If you can't come up with something better to describe what you do than a buzz-word associated with a myriad of crappy sites, than the chances you are generating useful content is probably near zero.
    • Edge Caching (Score:3, Informative)

      by Presto Vivace (882157)
      Wired [wired.com] has a good summary of the controversy.
  • google pays (Score:3, Insightful)

    by timmarhy (659436) on Monday December 15, 2008 @08:24AM (#26118753)
    This is google paying more to provide a faster service, not paying more to provide the same service. there is a difference.
    • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

      by HungryHobo (1314109)

      Which is exactly the same.

      "You can pay extra to be in the fast lane"
      is the same as
      "If you don't pay extra you'll have to stay in the slow lanes"

      because you end up in the same situation if you don't pay and get the same perks if you do pay.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Hognoxious (631665)
        What if you're currently in the middle lane?
        • it becomes the slow lane since the bigger the difference between the 2 services the more reason for those with deep pockets to pay for the better service.

          • by nschubach (922175)

            Service that ANYONE can buy... non-exclusively.

            • Service that ANYONE can buy... non-exclusively... just like any randomer can get peering with AOL.

              in order to provide a decent website you'd then have to pay packet protection to all the hundreds of little ISP's around the globe to make sure that those on the other side of their networks will get your packets even though you've paid for your connection and your customer has paid for their connection.

              Fantastic idea!
              Lets kill of the chance of ever seeing another successful internet startup that isn't being ba

              • by nschubach (922175)

                No No No. I think you are reading the Article wrong. This has nothing to do with packet shaping or data manipulation services. Google wants to put hardware in locations around the globe so that someone in England hits a cached version of Google instead of having to go across the Atlantic and the States to search the net. There is no talk of dropping MSN packets or prioritizing Google packets. This is purely about locating hardware.

      • by Aranykai (1053846)

        Excepting of course that google is a free service to anyone who can type google.com into a web browser. This would simply mean there would be fewer hops between users and google's servers, therefore a better quality of service to the user. It has absolutely nothing to do with the user paying anyone.

        Its like paying a higher price for a better location if you run a retail store. The customer doesn't pay for it, the business does.

        • Re:google pays (Score:5, Insightful)

          by HungryHobo (1314109) on Monday December 15, 2008 @09:39AM (#26119175)

          Which is exactly why NN is a good things.
          A flat internet favors startups with a good idea.
          The idea that you can hook up to the net and your packets get the same priority as anyone elses means that you can compete with big name companies. Hell google is an example. A couple of students with some good code did things better than the giants of the time.
          Now imagine the same scenario but where google searches were slowed down because they weren't able to pay for the "fast lane" and you might be hearing the term "yahoo it" or "micro it" instead of "google it"

          But if one groups gets a fast lane, one group with money gets to put their shops on the highstreet, then it pretty much kills the chances of that kind of competition.

          • by nschubach (922175)

            So, you advocate restricting everyone (Google, MS, and yourself) to 56K modems so that everyone has a fair shot at having the same Internet? Because that's essentially what's at stake here. From what you just said, it's anti-competitive for me to have a cable modem with faster upload speeds than your service and I should therefore be limited to the same connection that you have regardless of my financial backing.

            • by Phroggy (441)

              So, you advocate restricting everyone (Google, MS, and yourself) to 56K modems so that everyone has a fair shot at having the same Internet? Because that's essentially what's at stake here. From what you just said, it's anti-competitive for me to have a cable modem with faster upload speeds than your service and I should therefore be limited to the same connection that you have regardless of my financial backing.

              You've always been free to pay for a faster connection at YOUR end. The anti-neutrality people want to let you ALSO pay them to slow down your competitors' speeds at MY end.

            • You really missed the whole point of NN.
              Your connection to the net has nothing to do with it.

              You might have a fat pipe or you might be on 56k.
              the important thing is that when your packets are half way around the globe passing through some router belonging to a random corporation that they get treated the same as the packets of they guy next door to you.
              The anti NN lobby wants to make it so that that random company half way round the globe can charge you extra to not have your packets dropped/slowed in favou

              • by nschubach (922175)

                Right... so how is that different from Google putting servers in local ISPs around the world? That's what this "story" is about. Someone ranting that it's anti-NN to let Google place caching servers in key points on the net. (Effectively buying themselves a faster connection.)

                It's not like the competition cannot do the same thing. NN is about the data. Not the starting location of that data. It's about removing packet shaping and other Quality of Service restrictions so my game data packet has the sam

                • Right... so how is that different from Google putting servers in local ISPs around the world?

                  Paying money for something physical (e.g. servers or bandwidth) is fine, because anyone is allowed to pay the same money for the same hardware and the same bandwidth. Paying money to an ISP so that they configure their routers to give your packets higher priority than their competitors (i.e. an artificial limiter) is not fine.

                  It's about removing packet shaping and other Quality of Service restrictions so my game data packet has the same amount of playtime as your business proposal packet.

                  That isn't what Net Neutrality is about at all. Net Neutrality is about fairness in traffic priority regardless of source and destination. True Quality of Service configuration is not

                  • by nschubach (922175)

                    Yeah, That's my point... but his isn't about Google paying for higher priority... This is about edge caching. It was reported inaccurately and everyone is jumping on Google for something they never said.

      • by neomunk (913773)

        No, it's completely different. In one case, you have cars that have a special lane with a higher speed limit. That would be an un-neutral network. However, in THIS case, that's not happening. Google is effectively putting MORE CARS on the already existing lanes. The cars themselves don't go faster, but there are more of them, meaning when you call for a car, you are likely to get one sooner than before, because there is likely one closer to you than there would have been.

        Having more servers doesn't mea

        • Oh I was replying to an earlier post which was basicly saying NN isn't needed.
          I don't really have a problem with google adding more servers all over the place.

      • by Fastolfe (1470)

        This has nothing to do with "speed" (bandwidth or data rate) and everything to do with latency. Just because someone has pushed their content to servers that are closer to you doesn't mean those packets get some sort of bump in their priority.

  • by MikeRT (947531) on Monday December 15, 2008 @09:09AM (#26118981) Homepage

    I keep hearing how we need NN regulations because there is so little competition, but I also don't see much being done by NN advocates to eliminate local and state franchising laws which make it harder for companies to enter cable and broadband markets. If Google were more libertarian than liberal, I would expect them to be proposing a referendum in California to sweep away all of the franchising laws so that there are no local or state limits on who can enter what Internet or TV market.

    Part of the logic behind franchising laws is that they give more revenue to local governments, but so what? Most local governments can do without, and if you really need to help them with funding, then the obvious solution is to give them more latitude to tax their residents.

    • If Google were more libertarian than liberal, I would expect them to be proposing a referendum in California to sweep away all of the franchising laws so that there are no local or state limits on who can enter what Internet or TV market.

      Part of the logic behind franchising laws is that they give more revenue to local governments, but so what?

      Might be kinda difficult right now, isn't California (among many others) having some budged difficulties?

    • by mordred99 (895063) on Monday December 15, 2008 @11:21AM (#26120071)
      While I agree with the sentiment, have you EVER known of a government take away a tax? I mean there are toll roads which have been in place around here, and they have been paid off, and the next 50 years of maintenance have been paid off, but they will not remove the tolls. Why? That money goes into the coffers of the government. What about when a government proposes a higher sales tax to pay for a stadium or some such? They have paid it off after a few decades, but won't drop the sales tax, as they can do so much with that "revenue" stream.
  • by jabithew (1340853) on Monday December 15, 2008 @09:18AM (#26119025)

    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.

    • by Yetihehe (971185)
      Just wait till Murdoch sponsors some research of summer civilization. THEN we will be doomed.
    • by lseltzer (311306)

      He's also a major content provider through all ISPs. On balance I would assume that he has more of an interest in neutrality than against it.

      This is academic to me since I don't think for a second that the WSJ would bias a story like this in the way you imply.

  • Is this kind of carry on not just asking for a "useful" virus? (Not proposing it)

    There are plenty of smart people out there who are for net neutrality and a number of them might consider it lawful (or even their duty) to exploit the infection vectors that have served botnets for so long, to provide an "inoculation" that reverses the effect of this unrequested distortion of the network - "stealing from the rich" so to speak, which will inevitably "give to the poor".

  • I don't get it... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by squoozer (730327) on Monday December 15, 2008 @09:29AM (#26119101)

    struggle to see what the problem is here really. It sounds rather like Google are buying dedicated (virtual) pipes to move data around. Millions of companies already do this and no one complains. Flame away, I get that foot in mouth feeling.

  • by mlwmohawk (801821) on Monday December 15, 2008 @09:35AM (#26119139)

    net Neutrality is like election finance reform. The people trying to gain access are all for it, but once access is gained, the urgency seems to fade away.

    Google needs net neutrality where it is weak, but exploits sweet heart deals where it is strong. The ISPs should be careful, in this economy, the infrastructure that they depend on can be bought by Google or Microsoft. More over, if Google or Microsoft could buy or build a few major backbones, they'll be screaming bloody murder FOR net neutrality.

    I think Google has done the numbers, though. They are banking on semi-truck sized compact portable data centers and using existing the existing backbone as merely the pipeline for cache coherency. So when you run google apps, you are getting your applications only a few hops away without sprint in the way.

    I will paraphrase an old expression, never under estimate the data bandwidth of a semi-truck sized data center driving two days across country. Think about the number of raw terabytes that can be shipped vs transfered over the backbone.

    • by ffejie (779512)
      The economics of Google or Microsoft building a backbone doesn't make sense.

      A backbone is a commodity provider and if AT&T doesn't play nice with Google, then Google can go to Sprint, or Verizon, or Level3, or any number of cable companies that are increasingly getting into the game.

      If Google wanted to build the last mile, you're talking serious expenses, that even Google can't afford. Look at Verizon, who is spending $20B+ on retrofitting some percentage of their footprint with FiOS. The vast maj
    • What? NN protects the strong, too. Without NN, ISP's charge extra for people who go to major websites like Google's. Smaller websites can be given more leeway - ISPs don't want to kill them off, just squeeze them for as much as they can. Without NN the strong get their strength cut out from under them. No the only one NN doesn't help are the ISP's.
    • by bjorniac (836863)

      I will paraphrase an old expression, never under estimate the data bandwidth of a semi-truck sized data center driving two days across country. Think about the number of raw terabytes that can be shipped vs transfered over the backbone.

      I think you're confused. It is NOT a big truck.

      - TS

    • by Zerth (26112)

      I think Google has done the numbers, though. They are banking on semi-truck sized compact portable data centers and using existing the existing backbone as merely the pipeline for cache coherency. So when you run google apps, you are getting your applications only a few hops away without sprint in the way.

      I will paraphrase an old expression, never under estimate the data bandwidth of a semi-truck sized data center driving two days across country. Think about the number of raw terabytes that can be shipped v

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Hamoohead (994058)

      I will paraphrase an old expression, never under estimate the data bandwidth of a semi-truck sized data center driving two days across country. Think about the number of raw terabytes that can be shipped vs transfered over the backbone.

      I think my Gramma used to say that.

    • by aaarrrgggh (9205)

      I think in time, Google will have a vested interest in becoming an ISP. While distributed data centers might reduce the total long-haul bandwidth they need, getting preferred access to the local loops is what is critical for Google Apps and SaaS in general.

      A Google or MS can quickly subvert the stranglehold the LECs have today in major metropolitan areas if they have a competitive incentive to do so.

  • by qazwart (261667) on Monday December 15, 2008 @11:00AM (#26119863) Homepage

    Net Neutrality is somewhat a myth. Network providers already prioritize their own traffic in many ways like edge caching. Or, they might change the way data is serviced to allow a more requested provider better access. Absolute Net Neutrality is a myth.

    What we want to prevent is the practice of shoving a provider purposefully shoving third party content aside in order to better highlight their own content. For example, setting up your network in such a way that a Google search takes three to four seconds to return results while the provider's search results are instantaneous. Users will switch to the faster provider's search engine. Or, maybe streaming content from iTunes or YouTube is no longer smooth. You attempt to listen to a song or play a video, and you get a lot of caching going on. However, the provider's own video and music service is smoother with no caching.

    This is the true issue. Is the same firm that provides the pipe (or if you live in Alaska, the tube) to your computer using its advantage to push other business they're way.

    There were two types of monopolies that the government use to watch over. One was a horizontal monopoly where a single company captures a vast majority of the market and can use their clout to prevent others from entering the market, thus eliminating competition. An example of this was Standard Oil.

    The other, lesser known monopoly was the vertical monopoly where the company controls the entire vertical distribution. Two examples: One was the three television networks. They were prohibited from producing their own shows for the longest time. The reasoning is that if they could, they could favor their own productions over third parties. Instead of hundreds of independent production studios, there would be three who could control payments.

    Another example is Boeing. At one time, Boeing was not just an airplane manufacturer, but also owned an airline. This meant that Boeing could favor its own airline with newer equipment at cheaper rates, thus giving its airline a cost advantage over other rivals. This was back in the days when airmail was an important revenue stream for airlines, and Boeing could outbid its rivals. The government separated United Airlines and United Technologies from Boeing back in the 1930s.

    This is the actual problem. Local providers of service should not be content providers too. Otherwise, their content would have an unfair advantage over other content providers. This should be enforced not just in the Internet, but also with cable and satellite television providers. You can either provide the pipe to the TV, or you can provide the content over that pipe.

    If local providers of Internet service didn't have their own content they were pushing, there would be no issues with net neutrality.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 0xdeadbeef (28836)

      If local providers of Internet service didn't have their own content they were pushing, there would be no issues with net neutrality.

      What a load of bollocks.

      The primary threat is the telcom's stated intention of demanding kickbacks from successful companies in order to remain successful. It is selective price discrimination as protection money: "That sure is a popular website you got there. It'd be a shame if something 'happened' to it."

      What you're describing is only possible after they've already turned th

    • --"At one time, Boeing was not just an airplane manufacturer, but also owned an airline. This meant that Boeing could favor its own airline with newer equipment at cheaper rates, thus giving its airline a cost advantage over other rivals." Yes, lord help us if the consumer actually got cheaper airline tickets. Thank God the government "helped" us by making prices more expensive than they had to be.
  • by sdt (7606) on Monday December 15, 2008 @11:05AM (#26119911) Homepage
    Lessig has a response to this article [lessig.org] on his blog. Quote:

    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.

  • dont forget that at the fire-sale end of the dot-com bust, google went on a shopping spree for dark fiber and other carrier capacity that had been overbuilt. I don't know if they bought leases and options or outright ownership but in any case their commitment to network neutrality is conditioned by exactly one consideration: there has got to be a good fast way for joe.searchClient to see his google results and ads at least as fast as anyone else's content. If NN does that, google is for it, if some someth
  • If you read Google's response, it is pretty clear that they are trying to obfuscate the issue. What they are talking about is paying to put servers and data inside the ISPs and so gain an advantage for their content. This is exactly the scheme that AT&T proposed and Google condemned. Their reply is a technical splitting of hairs and a diversion. Cache end servers, etc, is all just "we want our data to have higher access and priority and will pay for it". Admit it Google, you're busted.

    What the Goog

    • by Eskarel (565631)

      It's not even remotely the same thing.

      It may seem to be splitting hairs to you, but renting server space(and generally reducing the overall traffic on the internet at the same time) is not the same thing as changing packet priority, and does not violate net neutrality.

      Net Neutrality isn't about ensuring that everyone's packets get there at the same speed(that's not even physically possible unless every ISP mirrors the entire internet locally), it's about ensuring that all packets are treated the same. Buyin

"Our vision is to speed up time, eventually eliminating it." -- Alex Schure

Working...