The Wall Street Journal has kicked up a real bitstorm
with an article implying that Google is now losing network neutrailty
street cred by negotiating with ISPs for a preferred "express lane" for
premium Internet content.
At issue is whether network service providers should be able to charge
more for faster access to high-bandwidth content such as video, and
whether content providers should negotiate exclusive deals with them.
Google has been a longtime proponent of "Network Neutraility" -- that
is, a free and open Internet that doesn't have a bias against certain
applications or content providers. The WSJ has called "scoop," saying
it has access to smoking-gun documents showing Google is negotiating
with the ISPs to create an express-lane Internet, directly
contradicting its past network neutrailty stance.
Several bloggers and "activists" have cried foul on the WSJ article,
saying it distorts Google's position. For example, Stanford professor,
lawyer, and media pundit Lawrence Lessig -- the first to bring himself
to the forefront of any issue -- says The Wall Street Journal is being sensationalistic, distorting both Google's position as well as his own.
"The article is an indirect effort to gin up a drama about a drama
about an alleged shift in Obama's policies about network neutrality,"
writes Lessig.
Anytime you put "gin" and The Wall Street Journal in the same sentence, I'd have to agree. Yes, the article is a bit sensationalistic. But The Journal also has a scoop, and all good journalists are taught to play up your story when you have a scoop. Don't be shy now, kids.
Still, they are following an existing model and at least so far, they can't be blamed of backing off from their original position on net neutrality.
The gigantic dimensions that Google is expanding too is certainly a big issue for policy/regulation evaluators/planners around the globe.
Trying to drive competition out of the market, as long as it is done by the market-rules (ie by not falling in any anti-compeititve law) isn't a bad thing. Whatsoever, all incumbents make a mistake at some point in time and that way give the chance for aggressive new comers to overthrow the king and become kings themselves.
Google came after the article's publication and argued that WSJ got things wrong and that they were negotiating deals AKAMAI-like, where google facilities would be duplicated in Telcos' CO to better serve end-customers.
It is important that WSJ show the evidence that google is seeking unfair advantage on the net and convince the readership why they think it is a bad thing.
I guess the important question is, what is the economic cost of net neutrality? Once we know this, the debate on whether it is good or bad will be carried out on an informed basis.
Guys and all those 'Activists" out there (As Scott calls them);Google is just being normal and following proper Risk Management and Hedging policies which every Organization should follow.
Major Manufacturers today Hedge part or whole of their Purchases in Currencies which are different from theirs.Do we accuse them of Manipulating Currencies???NO I DON'T THINK SO.
Similarly Google is just hedging their position.They still believe in Net Neutrality but are preparing and will be prepared for the eventuality if and when it arises that ISPs give Major Data Users preferred access to their Data pipes in addition for Higher Fees.What's the big deal there??? I think its very smart on Google's part.They realize they are a very big User of Data and if they fall on the wrong side of the fence their business and Reputation will suffer greatly.
Let say for Argument' sake-Google takes the High Ground and says we will never pay extra for Preferred ISP Access for their Search Business; MSN,Yahoo and ASK agree to pay extra bucks.What happens?
The Search results which a Consumer gets from Google Search will be atleast 10-20% slower than from Yahoo/MSN/ASK.So Users will eventually start switching sides.
Google is doing the right thing.As for WSJ they are also just doing their job.
Yes I agree, but honesty should be the principle binding consumers and producers. Let Google then clearly show they real position and we could know on which category to classify them. They are for Net Neutrality or they are not.
With this article out we could see the real position of Google whether they are "plotting" with the ISPs against us or not. What is sad in this business is that those companies always engage in alliances that will enable them to have a total control over consumers.
Scott, I totally agree with your view. Simply saying the Journal was "confused" doesn't cut it. Google appears to be backpeddling on their position, now that the paper has called the play as it sees it -- that is, without the spin.
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
In another step toward becoming socially acceptable, Google today unveiled "Google Buzz" -- a method for social sharing from inside Gmail. Naturally, some ever-creative types are already dubbing this release as a "Twitter-killer" and a "Facebook-killer." Because, we just can't get enough of that kind of language.
Hey, IE Radio lovers: We're live right now with Jeff Jonas, chief scientist at IBM Corp. (NYSE: IBM). You won't want to miss this, so hurry up and head on over!
We hope you can tune in for an IE Radio interview today with a true industry innovator, Jeff Jonas, chief scientist at IBM. We're talking to Jonas today at 3:00 p.m. ET. Do. Not. Miss. It.
Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL)'s recent unveiling of its "magical" iPad may have fanboys counting the days until March, but if a recent poll on Internet Evolution is any indication, not everyone is buying into the hype.
We do a lot of grousing here on Internet Evolution, and usually for good reason, considering the amount of nonsense that keeps this industry afloat on its cloud of hot steamy air!!!! But... we can still happily acknowledge those titans who have succeeded in leading the way or paving new ground in their respective fields and, in turn, give credit when it is well deserved.
Smarter Collaboration: How to Thrive in a Challenging Business Environment Market conditions are changing faster than ever, and organizations need to improve their agility and adaptability in order to provide better service and improve processes. The ability to work with customers, business partners, and employees as effectively as possible - while at the same time holding down costs - is a key to success. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
With the number of mobile broadband users more than doubling in 2009, and soon to exceed fixed broadband, the Internet saw a historic transition this year – and the long-term effects are incalculable.
Comparing Internet services is tough because service providers price and market their services based on a best-case scenario connection that most consumers will never enjoy.
Mobile TV is everywhere, and yet, nowhere. Nobody uses it – because the handsets aren't good, the pricing is too high, and the coverage is not good enough. But Qualcomm's FloTV Personal TV aims to change all of that.
China is investing heavily in fiber to the premises to propel itself into the world broadband Internet first division. What's it deploying, and what's it going to do with all that bandwidth?
New gateways are allowing service providers to sell a set of services (an experience) over any broadband connection – even those outside their physical broadband networks.
Research shows that the youth of today like Facebook – but not blogging or Twitter. Does that mean Facebook has won, or just that it's not yet out of favor? Will all the services we see today fade into Ovaltine-or-Wheaties status in just a few years?
What kinds of companies are doing the most innovation in the data center? Turns out it's midtier enterprises that are taking the "Just Right" approach.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
