Google Blogoscoped

Forum

WSJ: Google wants "fast track" for its content  (View post)

Juha-Matti Laurio [PersonRank 10]

Monday, December 15, 2008
10 years ago2,745 views

"Google Inc. has approached Internet carriers with a proposal to create a "fast lane" for its own content, countering its previously stance of equal network access for all content providers, The Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday.

One major cable operator in talks with Google said it has been reluctant to forge a deal because of concerns it might violate Federal Communications Commission guidelines on network neutrality, the newspaper said in its electronic edition.
...."

reuters.com/article/marketsNew ...

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

10 years ago #

Here's Google's response:
googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.co ...

Above 2 comments were made in the forum before this was blogged,

A. H. [PersonRank 0]

10 years ago #

Rubpert Murdoch's WSJ may be putting their political spin on this.

J. McNair [PersonRank 10]

10 years ago #

[put at-character here]A. H.
Certainly possible, But I propose that since net neutrality vs. network management is actually a complex issue, the author simply does not know what he/she is talking about. So, the article has spin.

I would not be surprised if many ISPs already aggressively cache popular content providers. Not to mention the entire business of Content Delivery Networks relies on similar deals with big (and small) ISPs.

Net neutrality simply treats bandwidth more like a public utility and less like cable TV. All utilities are managed to deliver the best service to the most people. So are networks. This is fair and good and proper. Most utilities disclose quality of service policies. ISPs don't, but should. Government-blessed monopolies, vague bandwidth "promises" and dubiously useful features are all we get in America. Customers at least deserve full-disclosure, so if half our pipe is going to Googlezon we know that.

macbeach [PersonRank 6]

10 years ago #

McNair is right and I don't know why so many have a blind spot on this.

Google and others already have an advantage as they have obtained expensive infrastructure that start-ups have to rent at a higher rate.

No government agency can fix this. In fact they can only make it worse. Look at the feds efforts to reign in Microsoft: Now every government desktop is running Windows by edict from on-high.

A Network Neutrality enforcement agency will not only *improve* lock-in currently held by big players, it will make it worse. And I maintain that is true even if the enforcement is 100 percent fair (which is unlikely). The mere existence of such an agency will be the nose under the tent for an Internet tax of some sort. Oh it will be imposed in very creative and invisible ways at first. But the results in the long run will be more of those mysterious and exorbitant "surcharges" that appear on your phone and cable bills. There will be forms to fill out in triplicate, lawyers fees and specialty companies springing up all over the place to deal with regulations, all of which small companies will be hard-pressed to pay for.

Big-government types who promote these "fairness" policies apparently haven't studied government very effectively. Either that or they are lying through their teeth in hope of lining their pockets in some way down the road to regulation.

Juha-Matti Laurio [PersonRank 10]

10 years ago #

BusinessWeek's article 'Net Neutrality,' Google, and the Wall Street Journal:
businessweek.com/the_thread/te ...

Marcus [PersonRank 0]

10 years ago #

Lawrence Lessig from Stanford also blogged about it:
[ lessig.org/blog/2008/12/the_ma ...]

Looks like Google has taken this one to heart, Google is always doing things they were always so 'high and mighty' about not doing before. Since their share price sunk they are getting savage, their true colors are showing.

This thread is locked as it's old... but you can create a new thread in the forum. 

Forum home

Advertisement

 
Blog  |  Forum     more >> Archive | Feed | Google's blogs | About
Advertisement

 

This site unofficially covers Google™ and more with some rights reserved. Join our forum!