Monday, December 15, 2008

Google and WSJ Argue Over Definition of Net Neutrality

The Wall Street Journal reported that Google was steering away from Network Neutrality. “A neutral broadband network,” Wikipedia says, “is one that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed”. The WSJ 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

At risk is a principle known as network neutrality: Cable and phone companies that operate the data pipelines are supposed to treat all traffic the same – nobody is supposed to jump the line.

But phone and cable companies argue that Internet content providers should share in their network costs (...) Carriers say that to keep up with surging traffic, driven mainly by the proliferation of online video, they need to boost revenue to upgrade their networks. Charging companies for fast lanes is one option.

One major cable operator in talks with Google says it has been reluctant so far to strike a deal because of concern it might violate Federal Communications Commission guidelines on network neutrality. (...)

If companies like Google succeed in negotiating preferential treatment, the Internet could become a place where wealthy companies get faster and easier access to the Web than less affluent ones (...)

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. Google has asked the providers it has approached not to talk about the idea, according to people familiar with the plans.

Google begs to differ, calling the WSJ piece “hyperbolic” (i.e. exaggerated) and “confused”, explaining:

Google has offered to “colocate” caching servers within broadband providers’ own facilities; this reduces the provider’s bandwidth costs since the same video wouldn’t have to be transmitted multiple times. We’ve always said that broadband providers can engage in activities like colocation and caching, so long as they do so on a non-discriminatory basis.

All of Google’s colocation agreements with ISPs – which we’ve done through projects called OpenEdge and Google Global Cache – are non-exclusive, meaning any other entity could employ similar arrangements. Also, none of them require (or encourage) that Google traffic be treated with higher priority than other traffic. In contrast, if broadband providers were to leverage their unilateral control over consumers’ connections and offer colocation or caching services in an anti-competitive fashion, that would threaten the open Internet and the innovation it enables.

Google argues they remain “strongly committed to the principle of net neutrality”.

[Thanks Juha-Matti Laurio!]

Google and WSJ Argue Over ... by Philipp Lenssen | Comments (2+5)

>> More posts

Advertisement