

WSJ made to believe Google abandons strict net neutrality - ckinnan
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122929270127905065.html

======
wmf
The meat is buried at the end of the article:

 _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._

Akamai has been doing this for years. Is it a violation of network neutrality?
The routers don't treat Google's packets any differently (as far as we know).

~~~
sachinag
I'll bite - this strikes me as worse than Akamai, because anyone can get on
those Akamai servers if you're a customer of theirs. Only Google will have
access to these servers - I'd almost prefer that the Akamai arrangement would
be against the rules.

I know, I know - this suggestion seems crazy. But maintaining dumb pipes is
critical to maintaining the separation between content and carriage. We've
already seen the cable companies get into fights over bundles of channels -
and putting servers inside the networks would essentially turn websites into
the new cable channels.

~~~
SwellJoe
_this strikes me as worse than Akamai_

In what way is Akamai bad?

And if Akamai isn't bad (as I don't see any way to say they are), then how
would Google doing this for their own use rather than paying Akamai rather
astounding fees be "worse"? I'm failing to see how this is anything other than
intelligent and efficient use of bandwidth. Bringing the content closer to
users is _good_ for consumers. It doesn't cost the consumer anything, it
doesn't cost the telcos anything (it actually saves them money), and it allows
Google to provide better service.

The only argument I could see against it would be, when does it end? Does
Microsoft have to build a CDN like this to keep trying to compete with Google?
Yahoo, I believe, already has a very favorable agreement with Akamai, so they
don't. But everybody else that has a very large web presence might want the
same privileges. But, since it saves telcos bandwidth, and they're the only
ones that would need to accommodate these new local servers, it's probably
perfectly reasonable to let them decide who they want in their data centers.

~~~
sachinag
You exactly see my argument correctly as "when does it end?" If this becomes
standard practice, you'll have a selected number of entrenched sites able to
be inside the network. That then gives the telco provider more power than they
have as mere dumb pipes, replicating the carriage issue I raise with my cable
precedent. There's no reason to believe that the telcos will take everyone
willing to pay a certain amount; these will all be negotiated, bundles will be
introduced, and you'll kill the promise of a free and unfettered internet
where we all have equal footing.

I'd be OK with licensed CDNs, but not with content and/or web application
providers. Again, this is me with my antennae at attention, looking at a worst
possible case scenario, but I play the red pieces. (Yes, I coined that phrase,
which is why you haven't heard of it. Yes, I'm mixing chess and war games
metaphors. Yes, damn straight I think it's a cool phrase.)

~~~
SwellJoe
_I'd be OK with licensed CDNs_

Who "licenses" the CDNs? That sounds scarier to me than adding more caching to
an already heavily cached infrastructure.

You do realize this is all just a matter of degree, right? There are probably
a half dozen caches involved in every request you make. Certainly DNS has
multiple caches along the path to getting your data, your browser caches local
copies of lots of data, and your ISP probably has a cache as well. A CDN is
just a specialized form of cache that can be a little bit smarter than each of
those caches.

 _these will all be negotiated, bundles will be introduced, and you'll kill
the promise of a free and unfettered internet where we all have equal footing_

I think this assumes a difference in performance expectations that isn't
reflected in reality. The difference between data coming from Dallas, or San
Jose, or Chicago, or coming directly from your ISP data center is measured in
the tens of milliseconds. I don't think this could realistically be expected
to result in "packages". Who would sign up for a "Google/MSN/Yahoo/eBay"
Internet that merely promised "30 ms faster!"?

------
pg
What an amazing press hit for the telcos. They just completely pwned the WSJ.
So badly, though, that there's a chance the paper will turn against them once
they realize how they've been used.

~~~
eggnet
The way I see this, Google wants to put servers in the edge ISPs, aka the
telcos, in an effort to save everyone money including those telcos. Google
becomes a paying customer, the ISP in question uses a lot less Internet
bandwidth and a lot more internal bandwidth, for which Google will pay. This
is probably a power play by the ISPs to try to get the highest price from
Google that they can.

I doubt it's a latency play, if you were already colo'd at the right places
you're talking about sub millisecond benefits here. This is about money, and
lowering the load on the Internet's backbone, which translates to time and
money to upgrade it, which leads us back to money.

So I agree, the telcos used the WSJ here. But not to block Google, to command
a higher price.

~~~
fallentimes
Akamai and Highwinds have been doing the same thing for quite some time.

Edit: Oops wmf noted the same thing below.

------
saikat
Apparently Lessig is less than happy about their reporting too -
[http://lessig.org/blog/2008/12/the_madeup_dramas_of_the_wall...](http://lessig.org/blog/2008/12/the_madeup_dramas_of_the_wall.html)

------
cgranade
Really, it sounds more as if Google wants cohosting than a "fast lane" or
other special treatment.

------
BrandonWatson
I was just finishing my post on the topic of GOOG and net neutrality when I
refreshed HN and saw this as the top link. When taken in the context of how
GOOG arbitrates access to businesses via Ad Words, it makes it even more
nefarious.

[http://www.manyniches.com/entrepreneurs/google-net-
neutralit...](http://www.manyniches.com/entrepreneurs/google-net-neutrality-
and-the-curious-case-of-lets-make-a-deal/)

------
helveticaman
I for one knew the WSJ had become a PR dumpster when they published the
favorable article on cutco knives. I haven't had respect for it since; I guess
the buyout was fatal.

link: <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121789140861111649.html>

------
TheBosch
Now the next argument is going to be what exactly is "Caching" and when
exactly does "caching" intrude on "net neutrality"?

