Slashdot Mirror
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 The story claims that Microsoft, Yahoo, and Amazon have quietly withdrawn from a coalition of companies and groups backing network neutrality (the coalition is not named), though Amazon's name is reportedly once again listed on the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.
"Evil," says Google CEO Eric Schmidt, "is what Sergey says is evil." We are all fine.
No!
You get "fast-priority" because Google put a server closer to you.
This is similar to what Akamai does.
So it's not unfair around the internet, only that google gets faster because it's closer
how long until
I'm glad that Slashdot restores the truth with accurate headlines
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
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.
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.
All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
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.
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.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Which has NOTHING to do with "Net Neutrality", even though the anti-neutrality people don't QUITE seem to get that it doesn't prove their point or that anyone's turning their back on things.
Net neutrality is about applying the same consistent rules for all content and not munging for "quality of service" reasons the stuff. If Google's stuff gets there to you more robustly and quicker, it's because it's spending quite a bit of money putting HARDWARE they maintain closer to you and more of it.
The stuff the net neutrality people are harping on about is where the crap the ISP's are shovelling gets priority unless you pay them protection money.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
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.
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.
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.