Network Neutrality Defenders Quietly Backing Off?

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 The story claims that Microsoft, Yahoo, and Amazon have quietly withdrawn from a coalition of companies and groups backing network neutrality (the coalition is not named), though Amazon's name is reportedly once again listed on the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.

Comments

No worries.

[satansmurf]

"Evil," says Google CEO Eric Schmidt, "is what Sergey says is evil." We are all fine.

Re:No worries.

[Arthur Grumbine]

That quote references Sergey's role as "the moral compass" 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.

Re:google pays

[HungryHobo]

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.

Is Net Neutrality a Myth?

[qazwart]

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:NN defenders should hedge their bets

[mordred99]

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.