WSJ Stirs Up Google Net Neutrality Brouhaha

Sorry Rayno, I don't see the scoop in the story -- but I do see a whole lot of errors. The error with the Lessig info is the most glaring -- since a little bit of research would have shown that he hasn't recently changed positions on anything. That's the kind of stuff the WSJ is supposed to catch, instead of claiming it is some big change in direction.

There may be some healthy debate needed about what net neutrality really means, and whether edge caching is or isn't true to the so-called "spirit" of the idea. But the claim that Google is backing away from net neutrality also doesn't make sense, since they have everything to gain if net neutrality laws get passed. Why would they screw up a good thing that they might get for free?

Seems to me like the WSJ got led down a path by the mysterious cable exec who remains nameless. And then compounded errors by not really knowing what they were writing about or what the exact details of the debate really are. Again, where's the scoop? Other than revealing how many people want to believe something bad about Google, I'm just not sure where the news is here.

Kaps,

Yes, I love finding errors, it would be helpful if you could list all the "errors" -- I'd be interested in seeing them outlined. I certainly wouldn't put it past the Journal to make errors, I just didnt' know enough about the specifics see them.

I will remark that the article is remarkably vague -- there are in fact only two paragraphs about the actual Google "smoking gun." This was the most interesting paragraph to me -- and this was billed as "The Scoop" :

"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."

Is it a scoop? It was news to me, so therefore it was a scoop. Possibly this had been reported before, but I hadn't read it anywhere else. Is it correct? That I do not know, I have not done reporting on this. I had to assume it was correct. But they could have just been making that up, yes. In fact the article doesn't talk much about these documents and doesn't really include much proof.

In the BIG PICTURE though, the Internet-Google-zealots have to admit that Google is talking out of one side of its mouth and acting in another way. Putting its own servers in teleco POPs cleary has a competitive advantage, whether or not that is included in the umbrella catch phrase "Network Neutrality." And I'm really skeptical of the claim that telcos would just go ahead and talk to any content company about doing this. They are talking to Google because it's Google. Is THAT Network Neutrality? Do you think if I called up AT&T and asked to put my caching server on their network they'd agreed? Let's not be silly.

I agree that Network Neutrality has become a vague term and more of a political buzzword than anything -- especially with Lessig and his "spectrum" of neutrality. It's become clear that it's not just one thing.

The bigger issue about network neutrality is not really about political "rights' at all, but it's about money and profit margins. Clearly Google has huge profit margins, because in many ways the telcos are bearing the bulk of their bandwidth costs. What the telcos are trying to do with a highly regulated "toll lane" approach is claw back some of Google's profit margins into their earning statements. If you compare the stock charts of Google to telcos, this makes sense to me. After all, you need a broadband connection before you start doing anything on the Internet.

Your report sounds interesting is there any chance you can send us a press copy?

Rayno, here are a couple posts that outline the errors in detail: David Isenberg has a longish one here, and Lawrence Lessig outlines some of his objections here. (Lessig also explains how the reporter and Lessig didn't quite connect clearly, helping along the disconnect.)

And to answer both you and KWalsh, it's not Google or net neutrality advocates who seem to be confused here -- it's folks like KWalsh who distort or reconfigure the debate to fit their own narrow agenda/opinions. I've been following this topic for a long time and try to remain as objective as possible -- and it seems clear to me that most net neutrality arguments are about access in the last mile, in the link between customer and service provider.

To put it maybe too simply -- if a service provider is blocking you from using Vonage, that's wrong and perhaps legislation or regulation is needed as a fix. If Vonage can't make VoIP work well on the back end, that's Vonage's problem, and it needs to spend the necessary dough and make the necessary business arrangements to deliver good service. No lawyers or regulators need be involved, as long as the customer can still choose Vonage, Skype or any other service.

That last point is what many seem to be missing in this story -- even if Google cuts sweetheart deals with ISPs, if customers don't click on YouTube the deal doesn't matter. That's different from an ISP who says you can only watch my "approved" videos or blocks competing services, like Comcast was doing with BitTorrent. How is that so confusing?

As I said over at Sidecut Reports, if you want to hate on Google for being overly preachy and overly Googly (or overly successful), go right ahead -- but don't try to raise the importance of that opinion by attaching it to a net neutrality argument, because that dog don't hunt. And KWalsh, if you want to wager a pint or two about Google's commitment to net neutrality and how that might play out in 2009, our betting windows at Sidecut Reports are now open. Judging by our handicapping system, the house will take the over.

(and yes, Rayno, Contentinople does qualify for an editorial discount on reports. Our sales department will contact you directly with an offer you can't refuse.)

Frankly, I'm no advocate of strict net neutrality -- I believe ISPs should be able to manage the networks they've built out and that subscribers pay good money to use in a way that allows them to provide the best quality of experience to those subscribers -- but there's a slippery slope ahead.

'Net neutrality' in the broader sense probably should mean that those subscribers also get equal access to all content, and frankly is one of the main tenets that has led to the democratization of independent content on the Web. 

Consider: Could YouTube have grown to be what it is today if it had to pay ISPs for preferred status, versus say, content from the big broadcasters or cable networks? Or maybe a better example is: Will independent video aggregation sites -- the Veohs, the Dailymotions, the Metacafes of the world -- be able to keep pace with the demands of grabbing eyeballs with high-quality video when they're bidding against huge multinational conglomerates for 'equal footing' in how well their content is served to the end user? 

KWalsh --

"According to the New Net Neutrality, it’s ok to buy collocation space from ISPs in order to obtain preferential treatment but it’s not ok to buy bandwidth from them in order to obtain preferential treatment. Clear to me."

Ha. Funny. And true

Vincent,

Um. I know how a CDN works.

Thank you,

Scott

I think defining it in the last mile is somewhat arbitrary, and that's part of the problem. The techno-geeks want to turn this into an argument about semantics and Internet politics. It's really about economics and competition.

The economics and competition question is:

1) Do service providers have the right to negotiate separate deals with content providers to discriminate between traffic services

2) Do content providers have the right to go to service providers and get preferential treatment of their traffic, in an economically structured deal.

That's why I think both Lessig and Google are being disengenuous. Lessig, by saying, "it's okay to charge more as long as everybody can get the same opportunity." Okay, so I'll take his word that that's not a "softening of his position," -- though my understand is when the first Network Neutrality zealots came out, they said they wanted ALL TRAFFIC TO BE THE SAME. So the argument has, in a sense, shifted, whether or not Lawrence Lessig has shifted. Because now you are saying that it's no longer about UNIMPEDED INTERNET NETWORK TRAFFFIC FLOW. You are now saying it's about FAIR ACCESS TO DIFFERENT LEVELS OF SERVICE. And now you are adding to that... "... IN THE LAST MILE."

That seems like a huge shift to me. Okay, so now network neutrality does included premium traffic lanes. And why the arbitraty designation of the last mile? As we know, telecom networks are enormously complex and intertwined, and any matter of filtering, traffic managmeent, caching, e.t.c. can happen anywhere in the network. If you are a consumer all you care about is can you get fastest possible service for your application at any time -- that may or may not have anything to do with what's happening in the last mile.

It's like saying, "You can buy this car, and you can drive 80MPH. But the engine will only allow you to go 60MPH. Good luck."