Thank you for keeping an open mind on the issue (0.00 / 0)

While I believe that Google still does support Net Neutrality, and the recent actions reflect this, I do understand that at some point (possibly soon) Google may find it to be in their interest to go with the cable companies and go with regulation.

However, there's a significant "open source" component to Google, as they are perhaps the biggest corporate supporter of Linux. They use Linux on all of their servers. They make siginificant contributions to Linux code.

Even though its Linux support could be considered to be a Microsoft foil, a shift away from open source standards, perhaps in the Apple mold, would be required. (The Apple Operating System is based on the Berkeley Standard Distribution, which has a much less rigorous license w/r/t open source standards.)

---

by: tietack @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 17:24:01 PM UTC

I should always reflect before clicking Post (0.00 / 0)

I did not finish the last thought - that a shift away from open source standards would be necessary for Google to move away from Net Neutrality.

---

by: tietack @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 17:25:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wireless (4.00 / 2)

IMHO the long-term solution to this problem is wireless internet access owned by municipalities. This sort of network is cheap to set up... just a box on a telephone pole in every neighborhood... and the typical (real) bandwidth is on the order of 5 or 6 MB/s.

So the public has one problem... setting up wireless networks... and the cable companies have two problems... abolishing net neutrality and preventing municipalities from installing wireless networks.

So far, the cable weasels have had some success stalling wireless, but some public interest groups saw the handwriting on the wall four or five years ago, and resistance to corporate cable monopolies is now fairly well-organized, in spite of so many cable monopolists embedded in the FTC.

---

by: Jacob Freeze @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 17:34:03 PM UTC

not nonsense (0.00 / 0)

I wouldn't call it media nonsense, it looks more like a classic divide and conquer PR strategy from the telcos and their allies. Take a standard technical solution Google is looking at and paint it as "anti-Net Neutrality". Many people, who are not familiar with the specifics of the technology, will swallow the story. It is a standard way to use the media to shape a political environment, and it works very well in the blogs.

On the substance someone would have to explain to me how a service like Akamai (in business since roughly 1998) is anti-Net Neutrality, and what the alternative is given the current bandwidth resources. I've understood the argument for net neutrality to be ensuring that market demand, i.e. the consumer, rather than monopolies, allocates bandwidth. Akamai is part of that market. For that matter so is bittorrent, another edge caching technology.

Ideally our bandwidth infrastructure will expand to the point were the demand for services like edge caching disappears. But in the meantime it would be counter-productive to define Net Neutrality as forbidding the technology, since the absence of edge caching would increase the load on Internet backbones and enhance the telco's case for central control.

This argument should not be taken to imply that Google is always good, they have their own interests which generally align with the net neutrality principle.

---

by: souvarine @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 18:40:34 PM UTC

Edge caching will always exist (0.00 / 0)

Just because it's more efficient, decentralized and better for everyone. If we get bigger pipes, we'll get more demanding applications, and to make the most efficient use of those pipes, things will be edge-cached.

That's not a bad thing. By analogy, just because you build bigger freeways, doesn't mean you should do away with local providers of goods/services.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

---

by: fwiffo @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 19:33:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What is neutrality? (4.00 / 2)

One interpretation would be that net neutrality requires that ISPs do not discriminate between content providers: if they prioritize VoIP packets, they have to prioritize VoIP packets from all providers; if they charge one company $X/unit bandwidth, they have to charge all companies the same price. But there is nothing preventing them from selling different tiers of service: if you want a low bandwidth connection, you pay less than if you want a high bandwidth connection. This is already the case at least for RCN (which I get internet from) -- a 10MBps down/768KBps up connection costs more than a 5MBps down/128KBps up connection.

I am not entirely sure what the alternative position is, although there clearly is one or this wouldn't be a debate. How is Google colocating servers with ISPs any different from them building widely distributed server farms and building dedicated links to ISPs? If you forbid the former, how do you avoid forbidding the latter (which I assume everybody would agree is perfectly acceptable)? And if you forbid this sort of colocating Google servers with ISPs, what about mirrors (which are really just a much more limited form of the same thing)?

My opinion is that there is a very clear line between discriminatory pricing/access and non-discriminatory pricing, but it is very difficult for me to figure out where you would draw the line between acceptable and non-acceptable use of resources to provide a better user experience if one tries to regulate against things like colocating servers.  

---

by: Tim Sackton @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 18:48:24 PM UTC

David Isenberg's post (0.00 / 0)

is worth reading for several reasons, including its clarification of key elements of NN as they relate to what Google is proposing, and how this was misrepresented in the WSJ story.  Like David, I'm pretty convinced that Google's caching is consistent with NN, though he also makes a good point that Google's massive size and growing market power is something that raises other concerns and merits careful monitoring.

---

by: mitchipd @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 22:03:08 PM UTC

How difficult this stuff is (0.00 / 0)

I think that one thing is that lawyers like Lawrence Lessig might just not understand that the internet was not built that way and you don't wanna go messing with the foundations of the internet.

It would be a lot like DRM.  It would annoy the real customers, not affect the pirates at all and in general be a useless piece of shit that only adds a burden on everyone.

http://transgendermom.blogspot....

---

by: transgenmom @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 00:48:11 AM UTC